Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Measures passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:
1. Dioceses Measure 1978
2. Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Parliamentary Constituencies (Boundaries)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to publish all its first proposals for altered parliamentary seats in England; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): It seems likely that the English Commission will publish the last of its provisional recommendations in the course of 1979. The final recommendations will be published together when all the reviews in England are complete.

Mr. Madel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Boundary Commission should make two alterations to the way in which it works? First, boundaries should be altered on the basis of the planned rise in population rather than the size of the electoral register, which is often two or three years out of date, and,

secondly, we should change boundaries when English constituencies shoot above 70,000 electors rather than wait for 10 years, when the whole thing is done en bloc. Is he aware that in eastern England there are constituencies with well over 70,000 or 80,000 electors, while in Greater London there are some constituencies with well under 50,000 electors? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the hon. Member not to make out a case, but to ask a question?

Mr. Madel: Will the Minister of State agree to instruct the Commission to do these two things?

Mr. John: If I may make a brief intervention in that speech—boundaries cannot be changed in a higgledy-piggledy way and Ministers have no power to instruct the Commission. On the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the projected rise in population, it might be dangerous to act in the way that he suggests, because, on the evidence that I have seen from reports in the local government sector, projected rises in population up to between 1976 and 1980 have been erroneous in a number of cases.

Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the electorate of Huntingdonshire has increased from 39,000 to 93,000 since I became its Member? What is he going to do about it? Is he aware that the local government reorganisation affecting Cambridgeshire and neighbouring counties has for a long time called for a Parliamentary Boundary Commission?

Mr. John: The Commission is in existence and is carrying out county reviews. As to the other matter about which the right hon, and learned Gentleman is concerned, he seems, single-handed, to have increased the population in his constituency. He asks what I am going to do about it. All I can say is that I am not a surgeon.

Drugs and Drink Offences

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were convicted in England and Wales of drug offences and drink offences, respectively, for the last year for which complete figures are available.

Mr. John: The latest figures available are for 1976. In that year, 11,220 people were convicted of drugs offences and 111,884 of offences against the intoxicating liquor laws. In addition, 50,238 people were convicted of road traffic offences involving either drink or drugs.

Mr. Hooson: Do not those figures and the figures given to me by the Chairman of the National Council for Alcoholism indicate that alcoholism and intoxication are now greater problems in this country than are drugs? What does the Home Office intend to do about it?

Mr. John: The figures for simple drunkenness fell by a small amount. The increase was in drunkenness with aggravation—drunk and disorderly cases. That is a problem that we shall study, in common with other crimes of violence.

Mr. Lipton: How many cases involved the use of cannabis, which is a non-criminal offence in many parts of the world?

Mr. John: I am unable to say specifically how many cannabis offences are included in the statistics. My hon. Friend said that the use of cannabis was not a crime in many countries, but it is still a crime in most countries, and the decriminalisation spoken of in the United States is not intended not to make it a crime.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a breakdown of the figures would show that the toll of death and injury on the roads due to alcohol abuse is rising, especially among the young? Is he aware that road accidents account for half of all male deaths between the ages of 15 and 24, and that the largest factor in all those cases is alcohol? Does he agree, therefore, that the delay in implementing the sensible proposals of the Blennerhasset Committee is costing lives?

Mr. John: The statistics show the link between drinking and driving and how dangerous it is to drive after having drunk. But the Blennerhasset Report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Criminal Appeals

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will

introduce measures to ensure that no appeals against conviction result in harsher sentences being issued in some courts.

Mr. John: This is, in effect, the position with appeals to the Court of Appeal. An appeal to the Crown Court, however, is different. It is a complete rehearing of the case, and the appropriate sentence in an individual case is, within the limits prescribed by law, a matter to be decided by the court. We have no proposal to amend the law in this respect.

Mr. Skinner: Surely it is a scandal that this can happen, as in the case of Christopher Roys, the Bradford student who appealed against a fine imposed by a magistrates' court for supposedly obobstructing the police at Grunwick and was then put in gaol. If it does not apply to certain other courts, especially those used by people who have "brass" and start off at a different level, surely the system is wrong? Is it not being used as a deterrent against other people who might have been charged arising out of matters at Grunwick? Should not this anomaly be removed?

Mr. John: There are a number of misconceptions in my hon. Friend's supplementary question. First, the Court of Appeal is not a rich man's alternative route to appeal. The Court of Appeal deals with cases on the basis of facts already heard. An appeal to the Crown Court from a magistrates' court, which is the sole method of appeal from magistrates' courts, is by way of a rehearing. All the facts are canvassed again and all the evidence is reheard, so that it is, in effect, a new trial. All I would say is that the court that retries the case should have powers, within the limits prescribed for the offence, to impose an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not the case that the decision by a past Parliament to remove from the Court of Appeal the power to increase a sentence has resulted in far too many people appealing on cases without merit, with the result that people who have genuine merit in their appeals have to wait far too long before they are heard?

Mr. John: Who can judge which case is without merit? That is a purely subjective judgment. All I can say, as


someone who looks at wrongful conviction cases, is that it seems to me that everyone who is convicted believes that he ought to have been successful in his appeal.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my hon. Friend undertake to have a special look at the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which has caused a great deal of disturbance? The youngster who has been sentenced to gaol could have his whole life and career affected by this extraordinary turn of events, which reaches far beyond the immediate situation at Grunwick. Will my hon. Friend give that undertaking?

Mr. John: As I have said, Ministers do not interfere with what is a matter for judicial decision alone. Therefore. I shall not comment upon an individual case. But I have made it quite clear that there is no proposal to give the Court of Appeal powers to increase a sentence.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Minister of State agree that it is contrary to the tradition of English law and English legal practice to increase sentences when there is an appeal against conviction, because there is a need for certainty in those matters? As the hon. Gentleman knows, judges tend to vary in their views on certain cases. A man should not risk different sentences before two different tribunals.

Mr. John: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said would be more accurate if the matter did not proceed by way of a new trial. What one has in the Crown Court is an appeal that is a complete rehearing of the case.

Juvenile Crime

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the rise in juvenile crime.

Mr. John: The Government share the concern expressed in many quarters about the level and seriousness of juvenile crime; but in fact in 1975 there was a 5 per cent. decrease in the number of juveniles found guilty of or cautioned for indictable offences per 100,000 of the population in the age group, followed by a 4 per cent. decrease in 1976.

Mr. Townsend: Does the Minister not fel that in this sphere magistrates should have rather more say and social workers rather less? If we had more bobbies on the beat, would not that be a good deterrent? If so, will he bear in mind that in London we are to have fewer?

Mr. John: The cause of juvenile crime is a more subtle and complicated question than can be answered by a mere cry that the magistrates should have more powers. After all, there is no evidence that a more restrictive environment checks juvenile crime.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We should be pleased to note the slight reduction in the last two years. Will my hon. Friend encourage magistrates to use the community service orders that have worked successfully where they have been applied by the courts? Does he agree that the community service order is a better alternative than remanding juvenile delinquents to borstal or to other forms of detention?

Mr. John: I always encourage the use of non-custodial dispositions where they seem appropriate.

Mr. Sims: Has the hon. Gentleman seen British Rail's recent report on vandalism and the reference to the extent of vandalism by children of 7, 8 and 9 years of age? Does he not think that there is room for a change in our law, which prevents youngsters of those ages from being brought before the courts unless they are found to have deprived home backgrounds?

Mr. John: The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. It is already lower than in most Continental countries. I do not think that it would be the wish of the House to reduce it further.

Mr. David Howell: The Minister talks about a "mere cry" that the magistrates should have more power. Is he treating this matter correctly? Is he not aware of the growing concern that magistrates lack the ability to imprison young offenders where appropriate? Is he prepared to consider changes in the law to meet this genuine and growing concern?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman should use his words correctly. There is no power to imprison juveniles at all. What


we are talking about is a small minority of hard-core juveniles. I favour non-custodial rather than custodial dispositions, so that those who can be turned away from a life of crime by constructive means at that age may be so turned away.

Birching (Isle of Man)

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the continued use of birching as a punishment in the Isle of Man.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Pending the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, in a current case, this remains a domestic matter for consideration by the Isle of Man Government.

Mr. Clemitson: If the Isle of Man Government will not take action on this practice, will my right hon. Friend initiate action in the House?

Mr. Rees: It would be better to wait and see what happens. The matter will eventually come back to me to consider. I feel strongly about corporal punishment, but wider issues are involved.

Mr. Powell: Is not the effect of the United Kingdom's adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights to alter the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man in respect of the internal affairs of the Isle of Man?

Mr. Rees: I do not think, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that this case alters our relationship. At the end of the day that relationship is a convention between ourselves and the Isle of Man. Our relationship is governed, if that is the right word, by convention. What we decide at the end of the day is our own business.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he personally is opposed to this barbaric business or agrees with it?

Mr. Rees: I said at the beginning that, with my responsibilities in this country, I am against it.

Mr. Marten: Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of the Isle of Man know best how to deal with this problem and that they have been very

successful in maintaining law and order there? Should we not, therefore, leave the decision to them?

Mr. Rees: I do not want to be drawn. I just make the obvious remark that one could take a small area of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a size comparable to that of the Isle of Man and find that the amount of crime in that area in which there is no corporal punishment is less than that in the Isle of Man. This subject is much better left until the Court reports.

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often he met the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 1977.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on 19 occasions during 1977. I last met him yesterday and have no immediate plans for a further meeting.

Mr. Sims: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Commissioner the present strength of the Metropolitan Police, which is numerically no higher than it was 50 years ago and is smaller as a proportion of the national police force? Will he confirm that at present there is a net outflow from the Metropolitan Police, whilst other forces are having less difficulty in obtaining recruits? Does not this indicate that there is an urgent need for a special approach to recruiting to the Metropolitan Police?

Mr. Rees: The Edmund-Davies Committee is meeting and discussing a wide variety of matters, and I imagine that that is one of them. I think that it would be better to wait and see what the committee suggests. I simply observe that there are differences of view between the forces in the provinces and the Metropolitan forces on this matter. Therefore, I would rather wait until I receive the report. Then we can look at the wider issues.

Mr. Christopher Price: On how many of those occasions in 1977 and this year did my right hon. Friend discuss the National Front march in Lewisham and


its aftermath? Does he agree, in retrospect, that the Commissioner made an error of judgment in not applying to have that march banned? Has my right hon. Friend completed his review of the legal position? Can he announce any future legislation to tighten up the Public Order Act?

Mr. Rees: I begin with the Public Order Act and the wider aspects resulting from its amendment by the Race Relations Act. I have talked to the chief officers concerned, and it is emerging that there could be some tightening up, if that is the right expression. My own view is that it would not make much difference to the situation, if one is simply considering the Public Order Act. I have discussed the matter with the Commissioner at my regular meetings with him, and on a much more day-to-day basis my Department discusses these matters with Scotland Yard.
My view is that if the Commissioner had decided to ban the march at Lewisham he would have been saying, in effect, that all marches in the Metropolitan area would have to be banned. The question is whether law and order can be maintained, and if the answer is "No" the march, whatever it was, would have to be banned every time that was the answer.

Mr. Dykes: When the Home Secretary next meets Commissioner McNee will he discuss with him the official policy, which is to allow the local Press to have access to police logs of reported crimes in local stations so that, for example, automatic Press publicity can be given to burglaries and other such crimes without consulting the people affected?

Mr. Rees: I shall look into that. It had not been brought to my notice.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Commissioner's attention to the Fisher Report on the Confait case and the comments in the report that some of the rules and directions in the Judges' Rules did not seem to be known by police officers? Will he encourage the Commissioner to ensure that every constable in the Metropolitan force is aware of those rules and directions?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly do that. There is a later Question on which the matter more specifically arises. The Com

missioner has read the report and is taking steps accordingly.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I agree with him when he says that there are great dangers in banning marches by one organisation and not regarding what many other organisations may do at the same time? Provocation in these matters is very dangerous, but the right to march must be preserved, and the law should be preserved. That is the job of the Metropolitan Commissioner.

Mr. Rees: That is so, but the law was drawn up in 1936, as a result of the then Fascist marches—the Mosley marches in the East End of London—and it follows that there must be occasions on which Parliament would think it right to ban a march. Otherwise, there is no point in having the law. Marches have been banned on a number of occasions. There is a difficult judgment to make in all this. I am saying that within the Metropolitan area a judgment on one march, simply on the basis of the preservation of law and order, would have ramifications for all marches. The Commissioner must take that into account in making his recommendation to me.

Mentally Disturbed Offenders

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans for the non-custodial treatment of mentally disturbed persons at present in prison owing to the lack of alternative facilities.

Mr. John: I do not think that it would be appropriate to provide for the treatment, in a non-custodial setting, of mentally disordered offenders whom the courts have decided to sentence to imprisonment rather than, for example, place on probation. But we are concerned about the number of mentally disordered people in prison, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services are considering what can be done to improve the situation.

Miss Fookes: As it costs at least £78 a week to keep each prisoner, would not the money be better spent on setting up suitable establishments, and quickly?

Mr. John: That is one of the simplistic accounting procedures that appeal to


me, as I have a poor grasp of arithmetic, but the fact is that unless we make enough room in a prison to close it down, we effect no saving on the prison budget, whilst increasing public expenditure elsewhere. I am interested to note that the hon. Lady is making yet another special case for increasing public expenditure whilst advocating decreasing public expenditure in general.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation in British prisons is becoming extremely dangerous as a result of the very high incidence of mentally disordered people who should be in hospital rather than in prison, but who cannot be in hospital because the judges cannot send them to Rampton and Broadmoor, as those establishments are too full? Is it not time that we acted on the Butler Report, with the full consent of the House, and told the Treasury that money should be available for some kind of establishment where such people can be kept safely but out of the normal mental hospital?

Mr. John: No precise estimate of the numbers involved can be given, but in the opinion of prison medical officers there are hundreds of such prisoners. As for the Butler Report, and particularly the question of secure units, the Government are very concerned about the slow progress being made, but for once that cannot be laid at the Treasury's door.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Minister aware that in Brixton Prison, for example, there are numerous mentally disturbed prisoners for whom the appropriate treatment is most certainly not in Her Majesty's Prisons? Is not the resistance of certain trade unions and the Health Service to providing adequate facilities for such prisoners the real restraint on dealing with them properly?

Mr. John: I would make two points. First, Brixton is a remand prison, and therefore one would expect dispositions about mental health to be made at the trial. Secondly, problems arise on the question whether hospitals have the appropriate facilities and whether the offenders are treatable. There are some cases of mental disturbance which are not treatable in the present state of modern science. It is that rather than blind trade union resistance, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, that causes the problem.

Hooliganism and Vandalism

Mr. Mates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that magistrates' courts have adequate facilities at their disposal to enable them to deal with offences involving hooliganism and vandalism.

Mr. John: Yes, Sir. The courts have a wide range of sentencing options available to them in such cases.

Mr. Mates: Is the Minister aware that there is growing dissatisfaction among magistrates at the lack of options open to them in dealing with these types of offender? Attendance centres have been set up. Why are there about 60 for those under 17 and only two for those between 17 and 21, in view of the hon. Gentleman's desire to encourage non-custodial options? Will he do something urgently to put that matter right and provide more of these cheap and effective means of dealing non-custodially with hooligans and vandals?

Mr. John: Junior attendance centres number 61. One more has recently been opened, and further centres are to be opened, The problem about senior attendance centres is that the advisory council that looked into the matter thought that it was an inappropriate type of disposition for people of that age, and the Government agree. Nevertheless, as magistrates believe that there is some value in the existing tool, I have deferred the closure of those attendance centres. As for other methods of non-custodial disposition, we are pressing on quickly with the extension of community service orders.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not the case that although magistrates have adequate facilities at their disposal they are not making use of those facilities and in many cases are imposing inadequate sentences?

Mr. John: As my hon. Friend will know, decisions in individual cases are for the magistrates. However, the Court of Appeal gave some guidance last week about the seriousness with which it views this category of case. I hope that hon. Members will study that guidance.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that magistrates


receive sufficient feedback on the effect of the sentences that they impose on juveniles who are found guilty of crimes, or are they merely left to impose various sentences from within the short range at their disposal with not the slightest idea which are the most effective in which circumstances?

Mr. John: The problem in any penal policy is to monitor and assess accurately the effectiveness of any particular disposition. I have no doubt that in many cases magistrates suffer from an absence of information on their disposition. One of the measures is the incidence of re-offence.

Mr. David Howell: Will the Minister of State tell us why senior attendance centres are not appropriate?

Mr. John: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the advisory council report for more detail. The sort of regime that is successful for young people does not have an effect at the senior range. What is appropriate for juniors would be wholly inappropriate for seniors.

Violent Crimes

Mr. MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to combat the increase in crimes of violence committed in the cities of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have already announced increased expenditure on law and order services to support the police with whom rests the immediate responsibility for preventing and detecting crime. The Government will continue to ensure that adequate powers are available to the courts.

Mr. MacKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important deterrents is detection? Further, does he agree that the morale of the police at present, especially because of their pay, has meant that they are disastrously undermanned, with the result that the citizens of many cities, including Birmingham, fear to walk the streets at night and are not being adequately protected by us?

Mr. Rees: I am sure that detection is a major factor. I advise the hon. Gentleman—I have done so since I have been Home Secretary—to read around on the

subject. It is not only a matter of detection. It is not only a matter of the penalties that are provided. For example, I found that in Soviet Russia there is far less crime than in America. That did not turn me into a Communist, or make me a Friedman capitalist, but it made me realise that there is more to this subject than we sometimes think.
I hope that something will be done about police pay, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will not run away with the idea that if the police receive more pay large numbers of policemen will appear on the streets and the problems with which he is concerned will disappear. I do not think that that will happen.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Merseyside police force is under strength, by how much it is under strength, and what activities are being undertaken to bring it up to strength?

Mr. Rees: I do not have the Merseyside figures with me. I can say that police forces are under strength. Much depends on what is meant by "establishment" Pay is undoubtedly a factor in recruitment. In some parts of the country it is extremely difficult to recruit whatever remuneration is offered. I hope that we shall consider these matters more widely in the discussions that will take place in the next couple of years about the role of the police and recruitment. People are not rushing to join the police.

Mr. Cope: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it was wise of his predecessor to reduce from eight weeks to six weeks the time normally spent by offenders in detention centres when they are in the appropriate age bracket?

Mr. Rees: That is a judgment on the period of a fortnight. In the discussions that have taken place on a wider front, I see no reason to believe that this decision was a mistake. The error that we all make—I put myself in this category—is to try to find a single solution to the problem. We shall never do so. There is a collection of answers, which goes across a wide spectrum.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In considering the causes, will my right hon. Friend turn to the effect that television is having on


young people, especially where, night after night, we are getting a surfeit of violence in the programmes?

Mr. Rees: One of my responsibilities, as my hon. Friend knows, lies with television and broadcasting. There have been a number of interesting reports. However, the answers that they offer are conflicting. There is one school of thought that takes the view that violence shown on television gets it out of one's system. The other school of thought believes that one learns from it. I do not know the answer. When I manage to watch television in the evening, my feeling is that an enormous amount of violence takes place, and I feel that that must be a factor.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman said that an increase in police pay would not automatically result in more police on the beat. That may be true, but is not the other side of the case equally dangerous and true, namely, that a lack of increase in pay is resulting in fewer police on the beat all the time? When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to get the report of Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee?

Mr. Rees: I cannot say when I shall get it, but I want a report that will stand the test of time. The 1961 Report did that. My predecessor has been referred to. In the statutory policy of a couple of years ago an arrangement was specially made with the police that they received a 30 per cent. pay increase when others had far less. My predecessor argued to the Cabinet that that was vital to the police, and he was right, but that did not solve the problem of law and order. All that I am arguing is that I do not think that it will do so next time, either.

Race Relations

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to seek to amend the race relations legislation in the light of the speech of Lord Scarman to the Minority Rights Group on the temporary nature of the Race Relations Act.

Mr. John: No, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us read his weekend speech with the greatest interest, especi

ally the part that stated that we cannot prosecute or legislate racialism out of existence? In these circumstances, would it not be wise for the Government to keep an eye on the continuing effectiveness of the Race Relations Acts and to ensure that they are a help rather than a hindrance to good race relations?

Mr. John: If the hon. Gentleman had read my full speech—I do not blame him for not doing so, as the extracts that appear are necessarily brief—he would realise that I do not find any substitute for a good Race Relations Act to secure equality of treatment. In so far as it is necessary to have an Act—I believe that it is, to secure equality of treatment for the minority communities—I am determined to make the Act as effective as possible.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not odd that a distinguished judge of Lord Scarman's stature should have made the mistake of thinking that appropriate sections of the Race Relations Act had anything to do with positive discrimination, in the American sense? All that they do is allow the Government to provide for special need rather than give any act of discrimination to anybody.

Mr. John: Nothing in the Race Relations Act provides for positive discrimination in the sense that my hon. Friend mentions. I agree that it allows for special treatment to fulfil special need, and I believe that that is vital.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe, in the light of experience, that race relations legislation is harmful to human relations and contrary to British traditions of fair play, and that the sooner it is repealed the better?

Mr. John: I believe that it is not race relations legislation that is causing an upset in relations but irresponsible statements, for electoral gain, that are made from time to time without any regard to the facts.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about legislating racialism out of existence was short-sighted—as if anyone were to ask "Can you legislate dishonesty out of


existence?" That has never been a basis for not having legislation, for example, against theft or robbery with violence. Does my hon. Friend further agree that what is required is not so much amending legislation but the keen conviction of every judge in court that he will not act against the law but will implement it? If a judge can interpret "One down and a million to go" as not an incitement to violence, are we not ready to conclude that that judge will never interpret anything as incitement to violence?

Mr. John: Race relations legislation goes a great deal wider than the one section that deals with criminal incitement. I am concerned with the whole of race relations legislation. The context in which I said that we could not legislate racialism out of existence was that race relations legislation is necessary but must be operated with determination and commitment by all sections of the community. I only wish that there were a little more on the Opposition Benches.

Firemen (Strike)

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to assess the overall cost of the recent strike action by the Fire Brigades Union.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): No, Sir. It will be some time before the extra costs arising from the provision of Service assistance to fire authorities can be fully assessed.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost—obviously substantial—will demonstrate the value of the fire service to the community? Is it not disgraceful that the Conservative leader of the Norfolk County Council, addressing the County Council Association, should have spoken in a hostile and offensive fashion about the negotiations and the agreement that has been reached? Would it be as well for the Home Department to advise local authorities which are threatening to cut down on fire services that that would be a dangerous and hazardous procedure?

Dr. Summerskill: It would be premature for me to attempt to estimate the total cost of the burden that will fall

on fire authorities. They will have to pay Ministry of Defence costs, which do not include the pay of Service men. All costs, apart from pay, will have to be included. At this stage I cannot say what that will mean.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Minister referred to Ministry of Defence costs. Were there not in fact savings to the Government by employing under-paid troops to do the firemen's work, with no overtime pay for it?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has posed a completely different question. I am sure that everyone appreciates the work done by the troops during the firemen's dispute. I cannot estimate the cost.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory-controlled Derbyshire County Council decided over the weekend to cut fire cover for all household hereditaments from two pumps to one pump at every fire? Should not the Home Department intervene to alert not only Derbyshire County Council ratepayers but, more importantly, the bigoted Tory-controlled council which is proposing to act in such a dilatory fashion?

Dr. Summerskill: Certain standards are set by the Home Department to which fire authorities must adhere. It is for each fire authority to conform to those standards in the best way that it can.

Chief Inspector of Constabulary

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I meet Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary frequently but have no immediate arrangement to do so.

Mr. Bowden: Is it not a scandal that many of my elderly constituents should be genuinely afraid to go out at night? Does the Home Secretary agree—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. Does the Home Secretary agree that the only way to check violence on the streets is to increase the numbers of policemen on beat patrol?

Mr. Rees: The Labour Government are, in real terms, spending £250 million


more than the Conservative Administration spent. There is another £50 million in the pipeline now. There are now 7,474 more policemen than under the Conservative Administration. I have here a recruitment figure for 1976 of about 1,000 more for the Metropolitan Police. We are doing very well, and very much better than the Conservative Government did.

Sir Bernard Braine: Nevertheless, will the Home Secretary discuss with the Chief Inspector of Constabulary the deep anxieties of every senior police officer in the land not merely at the decline in the numbers of male recruits to the force and the difficulty of retaining experienced police officers but at the filling up of establishments with women police officers who, though admirable and efficient in every other way, are a cause of anxiety when they have to be sent out on patrol in high-risk areas?

Mr. Rees: I note the hon. Gentleman's feeling that women have their place in the home.

Sir Bernard Braine: Nonsense.

Mr. Rees: There are more policewomen now. It is idle to pretend that there are not problems in certain areas. I discussed this matter yesterday with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We need to wait and see the result of Lord Edmund-Davies's Committee. I take full account of the proper needs of law and order. There are certain jobs that women cannot do and we would be foolish to ignore that fact, but in the modern world women who can do the jobs that men do ought to be able to get those jobs irrespective of their sex.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have asked for and got extra police on patrol in Walton, but at the same time constituents have complained that their children have been harassed because of those extra police? Will he try to explain to Conservative Members that it is not a simple matter to deal with this situation?

Mr. Rees: I agree that it is not a simple matter to deal with this situation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Home Secretary think again about the extraordinarily complacent statement that he made about things getting better?

Mr. Ashton: Declare your interest.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not a fact—

Hon. Members: Declare your interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary for an hon. Member to declare an interest every Question Time when it has already been declared.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I declare and am proud to proclaim my interest in this matter. Will the Home Secretary think again about the extraordinarily complacent statement that he made, namely, that matters of law and order are getting better? Does he not recognise that there is vastly more crime and violence and that considerably more policemen are leaving the service? There is a national problem. Will he stop being complacent, and try to deal with it?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman overdoes what he says for his own reasons. I was answering a question about recruitment, and I gave the figures. The hon. Gentleman has a vested interest in making political capital out of police pay.

Later—

Mr. Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time I think I heard you say that it was the convention in the House not to declare an interest during Question Time if it had been declared previously. I may be quite wrong, but it has always been my impression that the convention was not to declare an interest during Question Time. The addition of the words "if it has been declared before" seems very important. Perhaps now or on a subsequent occasion you could give us your guidance as to the exact position.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his interpretation.

CBI

Mr. Noble: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I met representatives of the CBI when I took the chair at a meeting of the NEDC yesterday. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Noble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many employers, trade


unionists and Labour Members are pleased with his firm stance, so far, on the temporary employment subsidy? In view of the intransigence of the European Commission on this issue and its wish to see TES replaced, for certain sensitive industries, by a less acceptable scheme, does he agree that we need a high-level political initiative to ensure that the temporary employment subsidy remains and is passed on to other workers in sensitive industries in the rest of the Community?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend pursues this important matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made a considered statement on the matter in the debate on Monday. As for future negotiations, I shall consider with my right hon. Friend whether the matter should be raised to a political level, but that time has not yet arrived. Our major objective is to preserve these jobs.

Mrs. Thatcher: Has the Prime Minister discussed with the CBI or with the NEDC how many jobs are threatened by his blacklist policy, or does he still maintain that it is a figment of the imagination?

The Prime Minister: This matter was not raised by representatives of the CBI when I met them yesterday, and I did not raise it. In view of the small number of companies that have been referred to in the newspapers, out of the 600,000 companies that are active, it was probably thought not worth while to discuss it at that point.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister admits that there is a black list. What is the authority for that black list, in view of the fact that there is a non-statutory incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: I did not admit that there was a black list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Lady puts words into my mouth. All that is completely and fully known is that there is a group of firms to which this matter has been put. Representatives of the Conservative Front Bench are apparently engaged in a dispute with the Department of Trade about that matter.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has given his usual slippery reply. [Inter

ruption.] Is there or is there not a black list, and how many firms are on it?

The Prime Minister: I did not discuss this matter with the CBI. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the right hon. Lady wants an answer to that question, there is a perfectly good way of getting it. She can table a Question to the Secretary of State for Trade or, if she would not be satisfied with a reply from him, there is the usual convention of putting a specific Question to me by notice. I shall then be very happy to give her any figures that exist on this matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend yet discussed with the CBI the recent pamphlet entitled "Britain means Business", which indicates that the Confederation wants substantial cuts in public expenditure amounting to 38 per cent. of GDP by 1981–1982, including massive reductions in housing and transport subsidies? Will he say what that would mean in increased rents and fares, not forgetting increased employment?

The Prime Minister: I would not like to give figures offhand, without preparation, but I notice that there has been this demand for a reduction in the standard rate of tax. If the Opposition policy of abolishing rates were carried out, we would find not a reduction in the rate of tax but a substantial increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 2nd February.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also attended a memorial service for Senator Hubert Humphrey. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Robinson: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend find time to have a short word with Mr. Michael Edwardes, Chairman of British Leyland, and extend a warm welcome to his new organisational proposals and the sense of leadership which he has given to the company? Will he also tell Mr. Edwardes that the real test of his leadership and the basis


on which he can ask this House for support will be his ability to obtain and sustain the co-operation of the work force?

The Prime Minister: I hope that everybody was encouraged by yesterday's reports of the meeting, in which Mr. Edwardes seemed to have gained an overwhelming amount of support. What is now needed, as my hon. Friend says, is a sustained and united effort to ensure that the feeling that was engendered yesterday is not allowed to fall away. I believe that Mr. Edwardes is fully aware of the necessity to carry the work force with him.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister take time to have discussions with his Cabinet colleagues to redress the subversion of the Scotland Bill that took place last week, the necessity for which provision is essential for the Bill and therefore the existence of the Government? Is he aware that the new 40 per cent. requirement in the referenda shows that Scotland voted against the Common Market. Therefore, what arrangements will he make to take us out?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider all these matters, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will probably want to wait until Report, when the whole issue can he debated again.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity some time today to comment on the statement made yesterday by the Shadow spokesman for Northern Ireland which has led to the breakdown in the bipartisan approach which has existed for many years? Is it still the Government's intention, irrespective of the conclusions that may be reached by the Conservative Opposition, to continue to pursue a just and acceptable political institution in Northern Ireland which will improve the whole community?

The Prime Minister: I have noticed recently that there are some issues in which the Opposition seem desirous of ending what should be a national approach to some of these matters. In the case of Northern Ireland. I hope that a national approach can be sustained and maintained as it has during the last seven years. What seems to me to be important is that in any arrangements for a future

administration or Government of Northern Ireland all communities should have a feeling of fully sharing in that administration or Government, otherwise we shall be back to the situation that existed before 1970.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Prime Minister come back to the previous issue and to the totally unauthorised policy of having a black list of firms in respect of pay policy? Will he answer the following questions? How many firms have been blacklisted? What is the Department of Employment's policy on this matter? Finally, how many more firms will be blacklisted, and when will the Government issue a clear statement on the subject?

The Prime Minister: There is a regular Question Time directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and I suggest that these Questions should be tabled in detail for him to answer. I did not discuss this matter with the CBI in relation to the previous Question. It is not on the list of my public engagements for today, and I have not come here with any information on this matter.
There is no secret about this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, if there is a secret, it seems to be a damned badly kept one. When I listen to reports on the radio of the unholy alliance between Lord Aldinaton and Mr. Clive Jenkins, I begin to think that the Government must be right on some of these issues.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 2nd February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).

Mr. McCrindle: If I may return to the question to which my hon. Friends have paid attention, if a black list were to exist, what would be the legal basis for its continuation? Secondly, will the Prime Minister say why the Sun Alliance and London Insurance Group should not take a perfectly reasonable management decision to improve the basis of its employees' pensions?

The Prime Minister: Any question that begins with the words "Were a black list


to exist" is clearly hypothetical. Therefore, I am not called upon to reply to it.
As for the Sun Alliance, I understand that it is proposing to challenge the secret report which has apparently been made and which is so well known to at least two of the directors of that company who sit in this House. Therefore, I have a feeling that any misdeeds that are likely to come out will be quickly made known to the Shadow Cabinet through the directorship of the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Sun Alliance board.

Mr. Kinnock: On the subject of both the bipartisan approach and a black list, will my right hon. Friend undertake consultations with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition to discuss why she appears to be preventing any remnants of progressive opinion in her party from sitting on the all-party joint committee against racialism? This is a matter of blacklisting that is of some concern to people in this country.

The Prime Minister: I can only admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity, which is now called parallel thinking, but I have no ministerial responsibility for any of the Shadow appointments made by the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Stanbrook: On the question of a black list, is not the truth of the matter that the Prime Miinster knows that sanctions against these firms are quite unlawful and that it only requires a firm with the courage to take the Government to court to bring the whole ramshackle edifice down in ruins?

The Prime Minister: There cannot be much of an edifice when we consider the handful of firms that are involved out of a total of 600,000 active companies. I do not want to engage in a discussion on semantics involving the question whether a list is black, but on the issue itself I hope that the Opposition and those who may be considering taking the Government to the law on this matter will also consider the impact if wages embark on a runaway race once again, with the resulting inflation, which we have now so painfully overcome. Perhaps those Conservative Members will consider that aspect of the matter, because I assure them that that is what the public are concerned about.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: In regard to that answer, however, and to the Prime Minister's previous answer with regard to British Leyland, is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the Edwardes plan involves the synchronisation of wage bargaining, much of which cannot be enacted until after 31st July this year? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend appeal to his colleagues in the Cabinet to desist from their repetitive comments about the need for a wage policy after 31st July which, of necessity, must interfere with the Edwardes plan of free bargaining for Leyland, which is now to be concluded?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that many hon. Members dislike any process of discussing wages and their future. Let me make it abundantly clear to the House and to the people of this country that in the manner in which our industrial society is now composed and conducted it is impossible to discuss any future economic progress in this country without discussing—

Mr. Ridley: Come off it. Rubbish.

The Prime Minister: —what role wages and incomes are to play.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6TH FEBRUARY.—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock. Afterwards, resumed debate on the motion on House of Commons (Sound Broadcasting).
Motion on the Third Report of the Committee of Privileges in Session 1976–77.
TUESDAY 7TH FEBRUARY.—Supply [6th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on the Government's industrial strategy, on an Opposition motion.
Remaining stages of the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8TH FEBRUARY.—consideration in Committee of the European Assembly Elections Bill.
THURSDAY 9TH FEBRUARY.—Second Reading of the Inner Urban Areas Bill.
Motion relating to the Medicines (Exemptions from Restrictions on the Retail Sale of Veterinary Drugs) Order.
FRIDAY 10TH FEBRUARY.—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13TH FEBRUARY.—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.

Mrs. Thatcher: I wish to put two points to the Lord President. First, we thank him for moving the debate on the Inner Urban Areas Bill from second Order of the Day to first Order of the Day on a different day.
Secondly, the Lord President will have heard the questioning that preceded his statement. Will he arrange for a statement to be made next week by the appropriate Minister about a black list, the authority for it, and what sanctions are being operated against which firms? He should be aware that we simply cannot carry out a pay policy by threat and without reference to this House.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her gratitude for the movement of the debate on the Inner Urban Areas Bill. We sought to accommodate the House on that matter.
On the other matter, I am sure that the House heard the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He suggested to the right hon. Lady that if she put down a Question, that might be the way of proceeding.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Leader of the House assist us in any way in regard to Early-Day Motion No. 220, which raises a very serious matter that some of us feel ought to go to the Committee of Privileges?
[That the matter of the false evidence given to the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill on 7th July 1975 by Michael Litchfield and Susan Kentish relating to alleged transcription of tapes be referred to the Committee of Privileges].

Mr. Foot: I have read the two motions that have been put down by my hon.

Friends and signed by a large number of hon. Members. I certainly appreciate the sense of outrage that they express in those motions. I am not sure whether a reference to the Committee of Privileges is the best way of dealing with the matter. But if many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members wish to proceed in that way, I shall consider it. However, I cannot give an answer at present, although I appreciate the very strong feelings that must inevitably arise on this matter.

Mr. Beith: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen any indications from the official Opposition that they propose to use one of their forthcoming Supply Days to discuss immigration? We are all waiting to know how the Opposition propose to cut immigration without going back on their previous pledges.

Mr. Foot: I am as eager to learn the answer to that question as the hon. Gentleman, but I have not received any such request so far from the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Blenkinsop: When shall we have a chance of discussing in the House the very important Court Report on child health and, particularly, the Government's response to that report, which was published only last week?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give my hon. Friend an indication of the time when we may discuss that matter. I shall certainly see whether a statement should be made and what is the timing of the Government's response to the report.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When will the Report stage of the Scotland Bill be reached? Can the Lord President give the House any indication of how many of his hon. Friends will join him in repairing the damage that was done by the wrecking Tory amendment last Wednesday, on Burns Night?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give the hon. Lady, as yet, a definite indication when we shall be proceeding with the Report stage. However, I am sure that all these matters can be dealt with when we return to the Bill.

Mr. Abse: May I call the attention of the Leader of the House again to Early-Day Motion No. 115? Is he aware that the alarm that is being expressed by the very fact that 155 Members from all sides


of the House have now signed this motion will be increased by the fact that the director of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has written to me today telling me that a quick decision has been promised by the Government, both to BNFL and to its customers, particularly the Japanese? Will the Leader of the House therefore understand that there would be grave disquiet in the House if there should be a suggestion that we may be gagged on the question of this fateful decision while apparently the Japanese have been promised a speedy decision? Will the Leader of the House bring the responsible Minister to the House next week in order that he may explain his dilemma on the quasi-judicial question and will he give an answer to the House on the demand that there should be a debate?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment to publish the inspector's report on the Windscale Inquiry so that the issues may be debated in this House before any Ministerial decision is taken.]

Mr. Foot: As I have said to my hon. Friend previously, and as I say to all hon. Members who have signed the motion, I certainly appreciate that this is a matter of very great concern indeed. No one denies that or seeks to dismiss it in any sense whatsoever. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had the report for only a week, and I think that he must have time to consider it. How we proceed later is also a matter for consideration, but I take full account of the representations made by my hon. Friend and others.

Mr. David Price: May I ask the Lord President whether the appropriate Minister will make a statement early next week on the consequences of the oil tanker drivers' strike on essential services? Is he aware that in my constituency general practitioners are already finding a petrol shortage and will be in grave danger by Monday of being no longer able to fulfil their duties? Will the Minister also tie it in with the problem facing disabled drivers?

Mr. Foot: Certainly these are serious matters. We shall consider whether a statement should be made and what is the

best moment for that. I take account of the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mrs. Castle: Does my right hon. Friend remember that last week he undertook to give the House an opportunity of debating the Seventh Report of the House of Commons Services Committee on the scheme for Members' secretaries, so that it could be brought into operation before the end of the financial year? Is he aware that if this is to be possible, the scheme must be debated this week, I think, or, at the latest, next week? Will he pledge that this will be in next week's business?

Mr. Foot: I fully appreciate the timetable on this matter. I have given undertakings to the House previously, which we are determined to carry out. I fully accept that if we are to carry them out properly, the best time, perhaps, is the beginning of the week after next week. I am certainly hoping that we shall be able to have the debate then.

Sir Bernard Braine: Did the Leader of the House hear earlier today of the anxiety concerning the rising toll of death and injury on the road, especially among the young, due to alcohol abuse? Is he aware that many of us hold that delay in introducing the sensible proposals of the Blennerhassett Committee is actually costing lives? When will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House as to the Government's intentions about legislation?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early statement about legislation on the whole of these matters. I have no doubt that the best way for the subject to be raised further is by Questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. But I cannot promise that we can have early legislation to cover the whole of these matters, because that would take up a very considerable amount of time.

Mr. Loyden: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to my request last week concerning a statement to the House about the position of British Leyland? Has he considered having a discussion on the Floor of the House about the statement on British Leyland which has just been made?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend will have heard the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the


House and is no doubt following the discussions which are continuing at British Leyland. I cannot yet say when will be the best time for a statement to be made to the House, but obviously it is a matter on which the House will wish to express its view in some form or other at some time. I cannot go any further at the moment about any definite date.

Mr. Fell: Does the Leader of the House recall his apology to the House last Thursday about the improper and reprehensible behaviour of three of the junior Ministers? Will he realise that since then there has been a motion—Early-Day Motion No. 215—with 121 signatures to it? Will he therefore find time very shortly for a debate of that motion, or persuade the Prime Minister to have a talk with the three Members concerned and ask them to retrieve the honour of the House by apologising to the House?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Ministers and the other Members, mentioned by the Serjeant at Arms in his letter to Mr. Speaker of 26th January, Official Report, c. 1601, and who remained seated in the 'No' Voting Lobby in order to prevent a vote, to apologise to the House.]

Mr. Foot: I believe and certainly hope that the vast majority of Members of the House would think that the matter was properly disposed of last week.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will recall that yesterday a White Paper on airports policy was presented. Will he provide early time for the debate of that White Paper, bearing in mind that a discussion is taking place on the question of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, with a public inquiry in view, and that the Civil Aviation Bill is upstairs in Committee? It is very odd to have a White Paper presented at such a point. Will he not agree that a full debate on the subject would seem to be required?

Mr. Foot: I should have thought that the discussions on the Bill should proceed first. We could then see best how we should discuss later the White Paper. Let us proceed first with the discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is nearly a year since we

had a full day's debate on foreign affairs? In view of the far-reaching developments in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and other areas, will he give urgent consideration to making time available for a debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Foot: I think that there have been other opportunities when a full day could have been selected for a debate on foreign affairs, and various aspects of foreign affairs have been debated. I cannot promise an early full day on foreign affairs generally.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Leader of the House recall that a fortnight ago he said that he would make arrangements for the Prayer on the Milk Marketing Board to be taken? Can he tell us when this will be?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when a Prayer is taken on the Floor it will have one and a half hours and that he will put down the proper business motion? That was not done last night, because we had only one hour and 10 minutes for the debate.

Mr. Foot: I shall try to ensure that my hon. Friend and the House as a whole will have the full one and a half hours, according to the undertakings that we have given. I cannot say for certain when that special order will be put down, but I will have a look at it and try to give an indication to him in advance, although he knows that there are difficulties sometimes about giving that advance notice.

Mr. MacKay: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister did not feel able to enlighten us about the Government's black list, and that many Opposition Members feel that it is morally wrong to blackmail firms when the Government do not have the guts to have a legally binding incomes policy, will the Leader of the House ask the appropriate Minister to make a statement, even if we do not have a full debate on the subject, in the very near future?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has suggested that a Question should be put down, and I think that that is the best course to follow. In the meantime, I think that it is absurd for anyone to use terms such as moral blackmail or any other such wild and exaggerated language.

Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary situation that we had in this House late last night and early this morning? We did not even have one and a half hours for debate concerning an order about drivers' hours—an order which even the Statutory Instruments Committee had not had time to consider—directly resulting from yet another Common Market regulation. Hon. Members who spoke in the debate, whatever their point of view, agreed that it was bungling incompetence that brought our proceedings into disrepute. But we had to pass the order, otherwise another more Draconian order would have come into force, and that would have caused a national transport stoppage. Whatever view we may have on the Common Market, it is not good enough that we should do our business in this way on these important matters. The fact that we had only one hour 12 minutes instead of the full one and a half hours added insult to injury.

Mr. Foot: I understand the feelings that my hon. Friend voices on these matters, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of many other hon. Members. We shall seek to overcome the difficulties. It was understood that the debate should take place on the motion yesterday. It was raised by the Opposition and the debate took place, but we shall do our best to try to avoid these difficulties.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: As the Prime Minister is the senior Treasury Minister and the black list has to do with withholding public expenditure, which Minister will answer Questions next week about the black list?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the procedures of the House. He can put down a Question and see the form in which it is accepted on the Order Paper.

Mr. English: Will the debate on broadcasting be on the same motion that is now on the remaining orders, or will it be altered? If it is to be altered, will that be done soon, so that we may have time to consider any altered version?

Mr. Foot: I hope that the motion will go down today. We are hoping to have a motion which will enable my hon. Friend to have his amendment, if he wishes, and for that to be decided by the House. We

are seeking to accommodate the House in that respect.

Mr. Adley: Has the Lord President seen Early-Day Motion No. 209? Is he aware that the fears expressed in that motion—about the guillotine on the Scotland Bill preventing any discussion on the future role of the British Tourist Authority—have come to pass?
As the Scotland Bill virtually castrates the British Tourist Authority, does he not think that the Government have a responsibility to find time for this House to debate the matter, which is of very great importance not only in employment terms but in relation to overseas currency earnings in this country?
[That this House regrets that, due to the guillotine procedure, no opportunity has been afforded to honourable Members to debate Clause 67, dealing with the revised role for the British Tourist Authority proposed in the Scotland Bill; fears that the guillotine will also prevent discussion of Amendment No. 402 to Schedule 16, in the names of the honourable Members for Christchurch and Lymington, North Cornwall, Dundee East, Caernarvon, North Angus and Mearns, and West Flint, relating to the numbers of members appointed to the board of the British Tourist Authority; believes that the changes proposed by the Government will result in a significant shift of emphasis in the interface between the British Tourist Authority on the one hand and the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and Wales Tourist Board on the other; recognises that the relations between the three boards on the one hand and the British Tourist Authority on the other have sometimes been both uneasy, and a source of conflict both of personality and interest, not always to the benefit and development of tourism to and in Great Britain; feels that the outcome of the changes to the British Tourist Authority as proposed in the Bill may have the effect of replacing on their board people who owe their current board membership to experience and knowledge of tourism matters with people who will be on the board by virtue of their geographic status; and, in view of the success of the British Tourist Authority in consistently achieving a substantial annual increase in overseas earnings from tourism, feels that political placemen,


regardless of party, are unlikely to make the British Tourist Authority either more effective, more efficient or more able to concentrate on its primary task of attracting foreign visitors to Great Britain.]

Mr. Foot: The discussion on the Bill in the House is not yet concluded. The use of the time allocated under a guillotine or timetable motion is partly the responsibility of those hon. Members, apart from Ministers, who take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members must look for opportunities of raising the matter.

Mr. Ovenden: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 16, which has now been signed by 180 hon. Members, expressing concern about the continued decline of pharmaceutical services? Many of us fear that the Government's latest offer will do very little to halt the decline. Will he make time available either for a debate on this motion or on the pharmaceutical services in general, including the Government's pay offer, or at least have a debate on the National Health Service, when these issues can be raised?
[That this House, recognising the importance to the community of retail chemists, remains deeply concerned about the rate of closure of such shops and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make available sufficient funds to ensure a comprehensive pharmaceutical service to the whole community and in particular to those most in need—the elderly, the very sick and mothers with young children.]

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise that there will be an early debate on the matter. There are, as my hon. Friend knows, other opportunities of raising some of these questions, and also other ways in which he and others can make representations to the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Raison: Does not the Leader of the House understand that the existence of the blackmail list—which apparently has no statutory foundation—raises deep constitutional issues and that it is wholly inappropriate to think that they can be dealt with by Question and Answer?

Mr. Foot: The usual method in the House is that Questions are put down and Answers given. Then, if the answers

are not found to be satisfactory in some part of the House, and particularly if they are not found satisfactory by the official Opposition, the official Opposition have their methods for raising debates. That is the usual way in which to proceed. I do not think that anyone should find that procedure extraordinary.

Mr. Skinner: On the subject of loitering in the Division Lobbies and reverting to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Lowestoft—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yarmouth."] Is it Yarmouth? Is that the kippers place?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bloaters."] Without condoning such practices by Whips or by anyone else for that matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend to find time next week to check the records of the period when the Industrial Relations Bill was going through the House and when there was a lot of loitering and lolling in the Lobbies by many Tory Members who, in their way, were trying to frustrate the Bill's progress and who included at least one who is very near and dear to you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Foot: I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as I did to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I think that this matter was disposed of last week.

Mr. Gow: Will the Lord President reconsider his answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the so-called black list? He knows perfectly well that no hon. Member can put down a Question which will be answered within 14 days, and he may also know that there has been an attempt to table a Private Notice Question today and that it has not been accepted. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he must arrange for a Minister to make a statement to the House about this matter very early next week?

Mr. Foot: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement on the subject which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier this afternoon. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition, if they wish, should consider my right hon. Friend's replies and decide which course they wish to take.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have been seeking


to catch my eye throughout business questions.

Mr. Moate: Will the Leader of the House try to find time to debate the way in which central and local government react to emergencies and natural disasters such as the recent heavy flooding on the East Coast? Is he aware that a large number of constituencies suffered severe damage, that a month later there is still total uncertainty about the extent and scale of central Government assistance, if any, and that we should have an opportunity to debate that and our preparedness for future disasters which could be on an even greater scale?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 27th January in which he indicated to local authorities the course which they could take if they wished to do so. I think that that is the proper way to proceed in dealing with the matter.

Mr. Brotherton: May I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said? We need a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about the flooding on the East Coast. Section 138 of the Local Government Act is no good at all to people such as the local government officers of Cleethorpes who need the product of a 6p rate to account for what they have spent already. We need a declaration of intent from central Government that taxpayers will help people who have suffered during the recent floods.

Mr. Foot: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to other right hon. and hon. Members concerned that they should urge their local authorities to proceed along the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We can then see what happens following those representations.

Mr. Thompson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense indignation felt in South-West Scotland about the proposal of the Atomic Energy Authority to conduct test borings in our hills with a view to establishing a nuclear dump there, as evidenced by the result of a public opinion poll published in the Ayrshire Post last week which showed 81 per cent.

of those interviewed as being against it? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when deciding when the House should debate the Windscale report?

Mr. Foot: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I appreciate the significance of the Wind-scale report and the great interest in the matter throughout the country, particularly in some parts of the country. I shall take that into account in deciding the way in which we should proceed.

Mr. Baker: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to allow the Foreign Secretary to explain the reasons which led him to deny an earlier statement by the Foreign Office on the executions in Saudi Arabia, since many right hon. and hon. Members find recent events there totally repugnant and the Foreign Secretary's attitude craven?

Mr. Foot: I repudiate any suggestion that the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary or any statement made by him on the subject was craven. If the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) studies the matter, I am sure that he will wish to withdraw such a suggestion.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House suggest that the question of a black list of firms should be pursued by way of parliamentary Questions. In fact, before coming into the Chamber for Prime Minister's Questions today, I had been endeavouring to table Questions to individual Departments, and I encountered considerable difficulties of order in getting those Questions accepted—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] As I have not given you notice, Mr. Speaker, could you perhaps give a ruling tomorrow on whether it is in order for a Department to be asked to name those firms which are on that Department's black list and why they have been so blacklisted, and also whether it is in order for the Government to accept Questions and have Questions tabled to update the last information given on 12th January in column 790 of Hansard to the effect that


The number of firms for the time being affected by Government discretionary action varies from day to day as up-to-date information comes in about their pay settlements. The number of firms currently blacklisted is 19."—[Official Report, 12th January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 790.]
That Answer has been taken as blocking subsequent Questions about how many are on the black list—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Speaker: I shall look at what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has raised. I never like answering off the cuff. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question tomorrow.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about Rhodesia.
Together with Ambassador Young of the United States and the Resident Commissioner designate, Lord Carver, I held talks in Malta with leaders of the Patriotic Front from 30th January to 1st February. Lieutenant General Prem Chand, the representative designated by the United Nations Secretary General, also took part.
The purpose of my talks with the Patriotic Front was, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 415, to enter into discussions concerning the military and associated arrangements necessary to effect the transition to majority rule in Rhodesia. Whereas discussions on these matters had been held since September with other nationalist leaders and with the regime, we had not been able to have detailed talks with the Patriotic Front prior to the Malta meeting. We achieved a much greater understanding of each other's position and have agreed to consider the points made and to meet again at a time and a place to be decided.
In these meetings I made clear that Her Majesty's Government, supported by the United States Government, have never wavered in their view that the proposals contained in Cmnd 6919 represent the best route to independence for Rhodesia and the surest guarantee of peace and stability there. On the basis of these proposals we are prepared to accept

responsibility for bringing the territory to independence following elections and are resolutely committed to ensure that those elections would be manifestly free and impartial. If we are to shoulder that responsibility we must have an assured and supervised ceasefire and, in cooperation with the United Nations, the control necessary to ensure maintenance of peace and good order during the electoral process.
The Anglo-United States initiative depends on the willingness of the parties to the dispute to compromise on their past and present positions, and to allow the people of Zimbabwe as a whole, through fair and free elections, to determine their future. At present the necessary measure of compromise between the parties is lacking and, tragically, and regrettably, it appears inevitable that the armed struggle will for the present continue. The British Government, despite all the obvious difficulties, will continue to work with all parties, within the framework of the Anglo-United States initiative, for a peaceful settlement.

Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement asserts time after time that the Government are prepared to co-operate in reaching a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia only on the basis of the Anglo-American proposals? Does not he realise that such an attitude appears to Her Majesty's Opposition absolutely intolerable [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—in view of the progress made in the talks in Salisbury where, after all, Mr. Smith has acknowledged the absolute necessity of universal adult suffrage? How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain such a position?
The Foreign Secretary's remarks about a supervised ceasefire imply that only when the Patriotic Front agrees to stop fighting will he be prepared to move towards a peaceful settlement. This seems to give a veto to the Patriotic Front which is totally at variance with equity in the whole situation.
Did the Foreign Secretary press the Patriotic Front to involve itself in peaceful discussions with other nationalists in Rhodesia, and if not, why not? In view of the many reports to that effect, did the Foreign Secretary or his Department at any time before he went to Malta communicate with the nationalist leaders in


Rhodesia in some way which hindered the progress of talks there?

Dr. Owen: On the right hon. Member's first point about the Anglo-American proposals, I said that these offered the best solution. I have constantly made it clear that the talks in Salisbury have made progress. The acceptance of one-man, one-vote was an important change in Mr. Smith's position, and one of the central demands in the Anglo-United States' initiative.
On his point about progress being made only when the Patriotic Front agrees to stop fighting, it is a fact that while two armies are fighting each other we do need both sides to agree to a ceasefire. The question of achieving a ceasefire between the two armies, neither of which has won or lost the battle, is extremely difficult. History shows that. One should strive to achieve that, however.
The right hon. Member asked whether I urged the Patriotic Front to talk to other nationalist leaders. The answer is "Yes, I have done so continuously and consistently". It is the division of opinion within the nationalist leadership that is one of the most serious problems in Rhodesia, and it is one reason why it has always been very difficult to achieve a solution.
The right hon. Member asked finally whether I or anyone at the Foreign Office had hindered the negotiations in any way. The answer is "No". We communicated with all parties, as I have now communicated with all parties in the Geneva talks, about the matters that were discussed in Malta. All the parties have the right to be consulted, both inside and outside Rhodesia. Bishop Muzorewa himself denied categorically that any message from us had in any way influenced him to leave the talks. Anyone who knows Bishop Muzorewa knows that he has a mind of his own and that he can come to these decisions by himself.

Mr. Davies: How can the Foreign Secretary reconcile his answer with the words in his statement
On the basis of these proposals we are prepared to accept responsibility for bringing the territory to independence.
Surely that means that on the basis of other proposals he is not prepared to accept the responsibility. But it does lie

with the Government to bring Rhodesia to independence. Therefore how can he reconcile these two statements?

Dr. Owen: The reconciliation is very easy. Under the proposals in Cmnd. 6919, for the first time the British Government have accepted that on the basis of these proposals we would assume administrative responsibility for Rhodesia. It is a colony that we have never administered.
I do not think that the House would wish the Government, or give us the authority necessary, to assume responsibility for the administration of Rhodesia while that country was still in a situation of armed conflict.
On the basis of Cmnd. 6919, a ceasefire and peaceful settlement are necessary. I do not believe that the House would wish us to commit ourselves to administering Rhodesia while there is a continued arms struggle. That is an essential point that many people do not seem to understand. It is the responsibility of this House and the Government to pursue a peaceful settlement and to try to achieve a ceasefire, but that is very difficult—

Mr. Churchill: Your policy is "peace at any price".

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman should remember how his illustrious grandfather talked with—

Mr. Churchill: His policy was never "peace at any price"

Dr. Owen: This is not peace at any price. I assure the House that throughout our history foreign Secretaries have had to talk to people in Kenya, in Cyprus and in Israel, where there have been freedom fighters. It is our job to pursue peace and that is what this Government will pursue.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: In welcoming the Foreign Secretary's statement and congratulating him on his achievements so far, may I urge him to persist in putting forward the Anglo-American proposals, which offer the best hope of securing peace in Rhodesia? May I also ask him whether he agrees that unless the Patriotic Front is associated with the settlement of the Rhodesia problem, there will be no lasting peace in that country?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he has always


had grave doubts about the possibility of achieving a negotiated settlement. I believe that progress is being made. He tends to forget the situation a year ago when there was no agreement on one-man, one-vote, no Bill of Rights and no agreement on black majority government. There has been substantial movement, and this is important. However, my right hon. Friend has put his finger on the main problem. While the armed struggle continues, it is very hard to see a peaceful settlement and elections taking place and giving a fair measure of opinion in Rhodesia for a future Zimbabwe.
It is in our interests to continue to talk and to try to achieve agreement, but it must be on the basis of viable proposals. That is why I stress that if we are to shoulder the heavy responsibility of administering Rhodesia, we must have a supervised and ensured cease-fire and we must be able to control and ensure its maintenance.

Mr. Thorpe: However grateful we are for the Foreign Secretary's statement, we must accept that the Malta talks ended in a total stalemate. Was there any discussion of the form of provisional government leading to independence? Is the Patriotic Front demanding that power should be handed over to it before the elections? If so, it would be totally wrong to hand over government from an existing minority to what may well prove to be another minority, which could be just as dangerous. Were there any discussions about a caretaker Administration of all parties involved? If so, what was the Patriotic Front's reaction to this?
While I accept that the objective of the proposals is to bring the parties into talks, if we were faced with the brutal choice between those who wanted a solution through force and those who wanted a solution by peaceful means, we should have no alternative but to side with the latter.

Dr. Owen: On the last point I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Although we should pursue peace up to the last moment, I envisage a situation in which we must consider recognising a Government that had assumed power while there was still conflict. This is a reality. We would have to assess that decision on the basis of how many people voted in the

election and whether the Government were reasonably representative of the vote. The whole House would hope that such a situation could be avoided.
On the point about the governing council—a term used for the method of dealing with the problems of the absolute powers of the Resident Commissioner and ensuring that he and the United Nations have necessary and absolute control—the proposals were discussed. These proposals would be in the hands of all parties, including Mr. Smith. I believe that we have reached some measure of agreement on the criticisms from inside and outside Rhodesia on that matter.
On the Patriotic Front's attitude, it issued a statement today saying that it stood by the principle that the sole guarantor of the irreversibility of the transitional process will be from the Patriotic Front's liberation forces. I do not accept that, and on that point we disagree fundamentally. This is a matter that must be achieved by agreement, and there must be an interim transitional period which is fair to all parties. In that transitional period all parties should have confidence in the measures taken and should feel that they have a fair chance in the election. I stand by that principle.

Mr. James Johnson: Since all parties involved whether white or black are committed to the election on the basis of one-man, one-vote, is this not an advance on the situation of 12 months ago? However, were not the Malta talks bogged down because of the joint objections of Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo on the United Nations peace-keeping force? If this is deadlocked will the Foreign Secretary turn to the adjoining frontline Presidents, because it is only through those third parties that we can unlock some of the opposition in Mozambique and elsewhere from the Patriotic Front.

Dr. Owen: It is not true to say that we reached complete deadlock, nor is it true to say that we made no progress. To say that is not worthy. The Patriotic Front statement to which I referred earlier said that both parties agreed that there should be some role for the United Nations. That is a significant difference. Within that role there are still problems about the extent and size of the peacekeeping force. This is an important


element in the Anglo-American initiative. There has been some movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Johnston) is right to say that the front-line Presidents have an important role in persuading all the parties to come to some accommodation. I believe that they desperately want a peaceful settlement.

Mr. Amery: Does the Secretary of State agree that although all of us are concerned to bring about peace, we are even more concerned to bring about justice? Does he agree that if we were to choose between the two, justice would be the priority of this House—that is to say, the fulfilment of the six principles? Does he agree that since the Smith, Muzorewa, Sithole, Chinav, and now the Nkomo and Mugabe factions have all turned down this plan, we have to think of something new? Does he not think that there is something to be said for putting his support behind an internal settlement and, if this were once achieved, trying to see whether the Patriotic Front could be reconciled to it? Would not this be a positive approach?

Dr. Owen: If we were confronted with a choice between peace and justice, think that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavillion (Mr. Amery) is right. I think that the House would choose justice. But it is a difficult choice. Most people recognise that if one achieves peace, one is better able to achieve justice.
I do not agree that all the parties have turned down the Anglo-American initiative. It is noteworthy that the Reverend Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa see discussions inside Rhodesia in the context of the Anglo-American proposals. Similarly, another difference has been that the Patriotic Front sees progress being made within the framework of the Anglo-American proposals. At one stage Mr. Smith and the South African Government seemed to think that this was a possibility and did not rule it out as a possible road to peace. It is not impossible that Mr. Smith and the South African Government might come round to seeing that this is the best road to peace.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that there is a Standing Order No. 9 motion and that later we have timetabled

business. I hope that hon. Members will be as brief as possible.

Mr. Grocott: Did my right hon. Friend assure the Patriotic Front that any settlement in Rhodesia that provided for separate electoral rolls for white and black people would be consistent neither with the principle of fair elections nor with the principle of majority rule?

Dr. Owen: On many of these measures, which I call confidence-building measures for the white minority, I do not take a rigid view. It is necessary to have confidence-building measures. That is why I insisted that there should be separately elected Members and said that a straight free vote system would not be practicable. There are severe practical problems in a two-roll system. There are other ways, and I have proposed them. These issues are not as important as the actual constitution. Safeguards for constitutional change are secondary. The primary thing is to ensure that the initial constitution is a good one and fair to everyone.

Mr. Gow: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision to invite the leaders of the Patriotic Front to Malta and his decision to invite leaders of Marxist Mozambique to the conference table has given the impression that he is more sympathetic to a totalitarian Marxist solution than to a solution based on the rule of law? Bearing in mind the cruelty which has been perpetrated by the terrorists in Rhodesia, mainly against the Queen's black subjects, can he assure the House that he called upon the leaders of the Patriotic Front to desist from terrorism?

Dr. Owen: I have condemned atrocities and cruelties from all sides, but the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) knows that in this type of war they will occur. I have made it perfectly clear that I wish this infighting to end. I have never encouraged the continuation of violence.
The hon. Member asked about Marxism. I cannot help it if he and others wish to perpetuate that myth and if the Tory Press wishes to throw this accusation at me. It is false, untrue and unworthy.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend seek every opportunity to impress upon the Tories that the era of white supremist minority rule is dead and gone


and that they should not look nostalgically towards it? Will he impress upon the Tories that the present situation is entirely due to the Patriotic Front fighting against a white minority that has held the majority down for so long? Can he assure the House that he will continue to bring together the four main black leaders to try to reconcile their differences, because in that way they will obtain one-man, one-vote, which the Conservatives oppose?

Dr. Owen: I agree that if the nationalist leaders would come together many problems would be solved. Most of them have worked together at some stage in the past. It is noteworthy that Mr. Nkomo in particular is recognised by many white Rhodesians to have the qualities that are necessary and that many people who have read about Mr. Mugabe question some of the things said about him after they have met him.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree that although there is a need to negotiate with the terrorists, there is no need to condone them? Does he accept that after his clear failure in the talks with terrorist organisations in Malta he should adopt the approach suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and consider holding negotiations with those who hope to establish a Government in Rhodesia based upon the main tribes and races and based upon the far stronger military force?

Dr. Owen: I certainly do not condone violence and I have resisted attempts to make me condemn the Salisbury talks. I have tried to set out the principles and to assess any progress towards independence against the six principles and the principles in the Anglo-American initiative.

Mr. MacFarqubar: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his untiring efforts? What was the attitude of the leaders in Malta to the kind of settlement which, it is disclosed, is being worked out in Rhodesia? What does my right hon. Friend think about the forces of armed Rhodesians that exist in Tanzania?

Dr. Owen: The Patriotic Front make no secret of the view that they dislike and deplore the talks in Salisbury. This relates to differences of opinion among the

nationalist leaders and the belief that the internal settlement does not reflect the true situation.
One of the problems which the House does not sufficiently realise is the danger of allowing the present situation to continue when considerable bodies of armed men are outside Rhodesia in Zambia and Mozambique and, at times, trained in other places such as Tanzania. This is a potentially dangerous situation. One of the dangers of an internal settlement is that it could spill out into a nasty fight in Africa and involve outside Powers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must limit supplementaries to three hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Christopher Price: Many of us feel that my right hon. Friend is quite right not to have supported the internal settlement talks because such an attitude could be the one recipe for continuing war in Southern Africa in addition to the wars that are already going on in the Horn of Africa and the Sahara. Will he ignore the noises from the Opposition Benches about Mozambique, most of which come from people who have never been there and have not seen the hundreds of people there from our Community partners who are giving far more aid to that country than we are and are trying to build up what is becoming a very successful nation?

Dr. Owen: Like my hon. Friend, I have been to Mozambique. It would be helpful if more hon. Members visited that country. Conservative Members would not approve of what they see. They would not approve of its Left-wing orientation, but they would conclude that it was primarily an African nationalist Government wishing to be non-aligned but having relations with the Soviet Union, as it is entitled to do.

Mr. Blaker: Last week and again today, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the six principles and to what he describes as the principles contained in the Anglo-American proposals. Will he clarify this? Have the six principles been superseded or modified in any way, either by the Anglo-American proposals or by the right hon. Gentleman's statement in Salisbury, which, I think, he made on 1st September last? If they have, in what way?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that the principles have been changed, although the first four of them relate to earlier discussions on franchises and such things. The House is now concentrating, and quite rightly so, primarily but not exclusively on the fifth and sixth principles.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the remarkable fact that practically every Opposition spokesman has sought to undermine the major initiative by the Government? Is he aware that they are spending all their time trying to advance a trend, in opposition to the British Government, adopted by Mr. Smith and his regime? They are spending all their time undermining proposals supported by the United States Government. May I urge my right hon. Friend, however, not to be discouraged by their attitude? Many people in this country understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to do and wish him well in it.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I shall not waver in my determination to strive for peace. I have made it clear that peace can often come about through many different methods. It does not have to follow one specific process. However, if we were to give up the quest for a ceasefire and a peaceful solution, whatever emerged would be a great deal worse.

Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports of the statement by Ambassador Young to the effect that any eventual settlement will have to be acceptable to the East—in other words, to the USSR? Does he think that that takes proper account of the naked aggression of the USSR in the Horn of Africa, and will he dissociate himself from that statement?

Dr. Owen: No. I have not seen the statement and I should like to see it before commenting on it. The United States has shown throughout a recognition that if we could keep this issue away from an East-West polarisation and think of it in terms of Southern Africa politics, that would be better. However, we are not naive and we are fully aware that the Soviet Union in Africa has its own intentions. It has supplied arms in an unscrupulous manner. It is clearly trying in certain areas to cause difficulty

and is not serving the cause of black nationalist leaderships.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a peaceful settlement with justice in Rhodesia, not only Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole, but Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe must take part in the round-table talks? Since we might be moving towards a free Zimbabwe and since black Rhodesians will be returning to a new freedom country, what situation would arise for white Rhodesians who might want to come to this country from the policy of stopping immigration put forward by the Leader of the Opposition?

Dr. Owen: One of my constant efforts is to avoid such a breakdown in law and order that there would be an exodus of white people. That would not be in the interests of Zimbabwe. We have a responsibility to protect white minority rights. The white people have a future role to play in Zimbabwe, and that view is held by the nationalist leaders who say so openly and who want to ensure that the white minority plays its part equally with the black majority in a free and independent Zimbabwe.

Mr. Churchill: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he does not speak for the British people in his "peace at any price" policy? The British people want the solution of the ballot box, not of the gun. Is he aware that the British people resented his crawlings last October to the Soviet Union in this regard as they resent his most recent cavortings with the terrorist leaders in the Mediterranean? Is he seriously saying that he and the British Government will back an internal settlement in Rhodesia only if it is pleasing to the terrorist leaders and their Soviet paymasters?

HONOURABLE MEMBERS (DECLARATION OF INTEREST)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought to indicate to you earlier that I wished to raise this point of order, and I shall endeavour to be brief. It arises from the point of order raised with you by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) in respect of the declaration of Members' interests. You will recall that he commented on your ruling that it was not


necessary to declare interests at Question Time when the interests were well known. My point of order is this. The Home Secretary suggested that my comments in respect of the police service arose because I had a vested interest. I wish flatly to deny that, and I want to make three short points, because this is a matter of order in this House.
Only three right hon. or hon. Members have ever had the honour of speaking on behalf of the Police Federation in this House. They are the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security with responsibility for the disabled, and myself. The Prime Minister frequently—I do not object to this—spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Police Federation. I have had the honour to speak from the Front Bench in opposition, but I have never spoken, nor shall I speak, from the Front Bench on this matter.
I hope that you will rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is appropriate, when any hon. Member speaks in respect of an interest which he acknowledges, that he should do it from the Back Benches, not from the Front Bench. The Prime Minister did not follow that practice. I have.
My second point is this. There are many hon. Members, and they are honourable Members, who have a connection with a trade union or a business organisation. The House well understands that. So it should in the case of the Police Federation, which is a statutory body. The police service, too, does not have the right that many other people have to withdraw labour. For this reason, as well as because it is a statutory body, it has become a convention of the House that the police ought to have someone in the House able to express their point of view from time to time.
I hope that the Home Secretary will withdraw any nasty or malicious slur that when I comment on behalf of the Police Federation I am doing it because of a vested interest. I listen to the views of the Police Federation and I make up my own mind. What I say in this House is therefore said because I believe it to be in the public interest. I reject any slur from the Home Secretary or any Minister, particularly from a Government the Prime Minister of which, before assume

ing that position, spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Police Federation, which suggests that I do anything other than this.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I spoke this afternoon about a particular point. It is typical of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to bring the Prime Minister into this matter to sully the issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) opens his mouth on every occasion but this is a matter between the Police Federation and myself.
In the House this afternoon I was asked about police numbers. I gave the numbers, which showed an increase. The hon. Member chose to dispute them, and in answer to that I said that he had a vested interest in never standing up in the House and congratulating the Government, even in the face of figures. I have never known the hon. Member to get up and do that. It is not to say that I believe he is venal or wrong in having the job that he has, but I will not withdraw a statement I firmly believe in when the hon. Member never in this House looks at the matter of the police objectively.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that will close the point, unless the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) wishes to pursue it. On this point of order, I think that the Home Secretary would do well to reflect a little further.

Mr. David Howell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier we discussed the question of police numbers and whether the numbers have been kept up while experienced men have left the force or have been kept up in a way which will strengthen it—a subject of dispute between the two sides.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) raised this matter, he was met with the riposte that he was speaking for a vested interest. That was what the Home Secretary said. While I recognise that we may dispute the question of the strength of the police force, on which we feel strongly, I suggest that it would be proper now to distinguish between the right hon. Gentleman's right to promote his point of view, with which we profoundly disagree, on the police


and his lack of right to accuse my hon. Friend of promoting a vested interest when he speaks on this very important matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We now have another version—that I said that it was promotion of a vested interest. I did not say that, nor would I do so, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a complete right to do so. I may not like the way he does it, and I may sometimes think that he acts in a way with which I disagree. He has a perfect right to do it, but I have a perfect right to say, in response to a question on numbers, that the hon. Gentleman has a vested interest in disagreeing with me on the matter. That is something completely different, and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has only made matters worse by getting up.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Home Secretary has less than handsomely met the point I raised. I feel that it would be better if I were now to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has reacted.

SUN ALLIANCE AND LONDON INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. Hordern: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter, namely
the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade to force the Sun Alliance and London Insurance Company to cut its premium rates.
The headquarters of this Company lies at Horsham, in my constituency, and this is a matter which will affect hundreds of my constituents. I submit that it is a specific matter, because the decision taken by the Secretary of State for Trade last night affects only the Sun Alliance company and his decision that the premium rate should be cut affects only that company.
That the matter is urgent seems clear to me, because the decision was announced only last night by the Department of Trade—and it is also urgent, I submit, because unless the matter is debated very quickly the Government will lay upon the company an order, which it

is not entitled to do. I say that it is a matter of considerable urgency. Of its importance I do not think there can be any doubt at all. There is no statutory Government pay policy in existence and yet it is well known and widely remarked that the Government have a black list of firms to which they refuse to give either orders or an entitlement to temporary employment subsidy where pay increases are given about the limit of 10 per cent.
That is the position as it affects a number of companies on what is known as the black list. Of course, with a company like Ford different considerations appear to apply, but in respect of the Sun Alliance company, in my constituency, there is no question of that company's breaking pay guidelines in any way. That company has made a pay award of 9·9 per cent. and has also made an improvement in its pension arrangements. It has done so on a specific undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 18th July last, in which he said that improvements to occupational pension schemes would be free from pay policy limitations.
I submit, therefore, that the Government have absolutely no grounds at all to try to force the Sun Alliance company to reduce its premiums. Clearly, this is a matter of far wider interest and importance, going beyond its effect upon one company, important though that company, may be. You will have heard this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, of the considerable concern there is in the House about the existence of the black list, and I submit that we should debate this issue at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member did me the courtesy of giving me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he wished to raise this matter and to move for a debate in order to discuss
the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade to force the Sun Alliance and London Insurance company to cut its premium rates
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. As he and the House will know, it is not for me to say whether or not this is to be debated. I have to decide only whether it must take precedence over all other business tonight or on Monday next.
I am afraid that I cannot rule in the hon. Gentleman's favour and must reject his application.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL (INSTRUCTION)

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the Instruction for the next-but-one item of business. Briefly, I drew the attention of the House to this matter on Thursday last, 26th January, referred to at column 1643 of the Official Report. As I understand it, Instructions to a Committee of the whole House are normally debatable under Standing Order No. 45, although the timetable motion carried last Thursday requires this Instruction to be decided forthwith.
The current "Erskine May" points out, on page 455, that time table motions have usually either excluded the possibility of Instructions altogether, or, if tabled and selected, provide for a short debate prior to decision. Thus, it seems that prohibition of debate today marks a new departure in procedure for which so far no reason has been given. I submit, however, that the motion could have even more unusual and novel effects. If passed it would make it possible for the Committee to consider a new clause tabled by the Government which otherwise would be out of order. This is shown by the tabling of New Clause 8, with consequential Amendment No. 191, which widens the scope of the Bill by adding words to its Long Title. I understand that it is unusual for the Government to table such an amendment, but I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to the likely effect of so doing in conjunction with the timetable motion that has specific reference and time allocation to the new clause.
On this occasion it may be that both the new clause and the enlargement of scope will not provoke disapproval, since the Government may claim that they are tabling New Clause 8 to give effect to undertakings already given. The undertaking was made as long ago as 1st December last year, some eight weeks ago, but only now can we debate this in the context of a guillotine.
You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that earlier in the proceedings of the Committee the Chair and the Committee have been placed in difficulties, since the restricted terms of the Long Title and the

Bill as drafted have ruled out of order a number of amendments that had been tabled but could not be debated. Now the Government not only wish to widen the scope of the Bill; they have provided a specific slot in the timetable for their new clause to be debated, which, had it been tabled earlier by a Back Bencher or, indeed, by Her Majesty's Opposition, would have been ruled out of order. Thus, earlier relevant debate would have been prohibited on what later may become within the scope of the Bill.
In this instance it may be that the change in scope of the Bill, whilst significant, is not wide, but that is not the central point. Procedurally, it now appears that a Government can, half-way through a Bill, when some of its most important clauses have been disposed of, produce an undebatable Instruction which permits the enlargement of the scope of the Bill, and provide themselves with an exclusive slot for their new amendment, while effectively preventing anybody else making use of the enlarged scope. If that is indeed the case, I submit that it is a procedural innovation of some significance, the implications of which will be readily apparent.
I therefore hope that it will be possible for you to confirm or correct the procedural position that I have described. If, indeed, this mechanism is technically in order, I submit that its use to change the scope of a controversial constitutional Bill, guillotined in equally controversial circumstances, is a matter of which the House should take note, since some may believe that it should not be a precedent and should never happen again. I apologise for the length of this point of order, but I believe that a ruling from the Chair is required by the circumstances now before the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Instruction that appears on the Order Paper prima facie is contrary to item 4 of the timetable resolution which currently governs the proceedings on which we are about to enter. Paragraph 4 says that
No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.
The House passed that, so surely, under the normal rule that once the House has taken a decision it cannot countermand


that decision in the same relevant time period, the Chair is stopped from putting this Instruction to the House by the resolution of the House already passed, which says that no such provision shall be taken. I read it again:
No Motion shall be made to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.
I realise that it is the intention formally to take this Instruction before entering on to the other business under the timetable resolution, but it appears on the Order Paper not as an item to be taken before the European Assembly Elections Bill but to be taken encompassed within that timetable. That being the case, I repeat my contention that the resolution already passed by the House to stop the Chair from putting this Instruction to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of the point of order that he wished to raise. I do not quarrel at all with what he said on the matter of procedure. He may well be correct in his contention that this is the first time that this provision has appeared in an allocation of time order, but my answer to both hon. Members is that, whether this is so or not, the fact remains that this order, with all its provisions, was agreed to by the House on 26th January. No rule of order is infringed thereby.
If it were necessary, I could read it to the House, but the House discussed it during the debate on the timetable

motion, and it is my duty to carry out the order that the House has made.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to avoid any impression that the Government are not merely altering the rules in the middle of the game in a way that applies to one side only, surely there is a further point that arises on the Notice Paper listing the amendments to the Bill.
The Foreign Secretary's new clause appears as New Clause 8, on page 1292 of the list of amendments, but the amendment to the Long Title of the Bill, No. 191, appears later, on page 1338. As matters now stand, we shall discuss, apparently, the amendment to the Long Title, which is to put the new clause in order, after we discuss the new clause. I ask for your guidance on the question how it can be in order to discuss New Clause 8 before we have considered the amendment to the Long Title which puts this discussion in order.

Mr. Speaker: What I am concerned with is the Instruction. What happens in Committee is not my concern at the moment. I am concerned with the Instruction, and I have ruled on it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duty (Quota Relief) (Paper, Paperboard and Printed Products) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 2048) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order [26th January],
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill to secure that no treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the Assembly of the European Communities is ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Question agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee. [Progress, 12th January.]

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You will have heard the point which I raised briefly and prematurely with Mr. Speaker. What I should like to know is whether we take first New Clause 8, which has been put down by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, or Amendment No. 191, which alters the Long Title in order to put the new clause in order. If we take the new clause first, how can it be in order to do so before we have amended the Long Title?

The Chairman: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the whole subject is laid down under Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Standing Order No. 42 does indeed cover this point. It states:
if any such amendments shall not be within the long title of the Bill, they shall amend the long title accordingly, and report the same specially to the House.
I think that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was not that the power of the Committee does not exist. He was arguing that, if it were to be done, it should be done before the new clause is taken on which it depends. I therefore submit that, while Standing Order No. 42 deals with the matter, it does not deal

with the matter in the order and sequence to which my right hon. Friend refers.

The Chairman: Such Questions are always put at the end of all proceedings on the Bill.

Clause 3

METHOD OF ELECTION

Amendment proposed [12th January]: No. 26, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'system' to end of line 9.—[Mr. Powell.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has the Floor of the Committee, I remind the Committee that we are discussing at the same time the following amendments:

No. 42, in Schedule 1, page 11, line 8, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 14.

No. 45, in page 11, line 15, leave out '79' and insert '81'.

No. 100, in page 11, line 17, leave out '66' and insert '67'.

No. 180, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'I shall be that of' and insert '2 shall be in'.

No. 103, in page 11, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

No. 105, in Schedule 2, page 15, line 13, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 108, in page 15, line 16, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert United Kingdom'.

No. 109, in page 15, line 20, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 110, in page 15, line 25, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 111, in page 15, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 112, in page 15, line 30, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 107, in page 17, line 25, leave out 'in Great Britain'.

No. 113, in page 17, line 40, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 114, in page 17, line 43, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 115, in page 18, line 8, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 116, in page 18, line 10, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

No. 117, in page 18, line 25, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

I have since added to the list the following amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison):

No. 192, in Schedule 1, page 11, line 15, leave out '79' and insert '81'.

No. 193, in page 11, line 20, leave out '1' and insert '3'.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—
I feel tempted to repeat some of the remarks I made late on 12th January, but I am certain that hon. Members who were present, and even those who were absent, know the importance of the amendment and will have read my remarks.
At the outset, I am addressing my remarks primarily to the Conservative Opposition. They were the Government who introduced proportional representation into Northern Ireland. They did it for a very specific reason, and with the full support of the Labour Party both in the country and in this House. They did it because they believed that the first-past-the-post system for elections in Northern Ireland did not adequately reflect the views of the widely divergent community in Northern Ireland. They did that consciously and deliberately in the hope that it would lead to the break-up of the monolithic parties on both sides—loyalist and nationalist—and that moderate candidates with a different outlook and vision would emerge and would break away from extreme attitudes that have existed in Northern Ireland for so long. To some extent, that happened because men were elected at that time who did not have the diehard views that had been held by so many throughout Northern Ireland's existence.
The Alliance Party was born out of that decision to introduce proportional

representation into Northern Ireland. I am not a member of that party and I am not sure that I support many of its views, but it was a creature of that Conservative Government's intention to introduce PR.
From the creation of Northern Ireland in 1922 until 1952 many of the elections were unnecessary. I remember one election in the late 1940s or early 1950s in which there were 18 or 19 unopposed returns in the 52 Stormont constituencies. The whole Cabinet was elected before a single vote was cast.
People did not consider it worth while to fight the incumbents of those seats, whether Protestant or Catholic. Some may claim that this reflected the will of the majority of the electorate, but I have never taken that view. I regard it as a negation of the concept of democracy. In this country there is always the possibility, however remote, of people changing their minds and Members being ousted. We have seen some strange election results over here. That cannot happen in Northern Ireland because of the political and, particularly, the religious divisions that were deliberately created by the British Government who imposed partition on the island of Ireland.
People do not talk of Labour or Tory, Socialist or Conservative in Northern Ireland. They talk about the majority and the minority. That is the attitude that has led to absolute and total disaster in Northern Ireland. Do not let us hear any talk of majority opinion from those who are rooting for the first-past-the-post system. That majority was artificially created. Sir Edward Carson went into every town, village and hamlet in the counties of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan and asked how many Protestants and how many Catholics lived there. When he discovered that the Catholic population was 280,000 he could not guarantee to govern them from Belfast, so he decided to sacrifice 70,000 Protestants in those counties to the fortunes of the Dublin Government. Those are his words not mine.
How can we expect democracy or even the beginnings of democracy and normal political divisions to exist when that was the terrible base on which the State of Northern Ireland was created?
The Tories are trying to renege on the decisions they took. I know they have a


one-line Whip on this vote and are trying to tell us that they are having a free vote on their side, but in every corridor in this place they are canvassing as vehemently as possible, trying to get all their Members to go into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to vote for the first-past-the-post system.
It is appropriate that this debate should be opened up again now, particularly after the remarks of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who made clear yesterday that the Tories were prepared to play the Orange card to get the votes of that galaxy of talent on the Unionist Bench. One day we find the Opposition courting the Orange vote and the next they are playing the black card. That shows the extremes that the Opposition are prepared to go to and the extremists on whose votes they are happy to rely in order to get to power.
For the non-Unionist electors in Northern Ireland, this is a crucial amendment. After reading the remarks of the hon. Member for Abingdon, who said that power sharing is out of the window for the Tories and that they are going for the return of functions to local authorities and majority rule again—in effect, going back to what was happening between 1968 and 1970—the amendment and the vote on it have become all the more important.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland are squealing for more seats at Westminster. They say that they are under represented and want to be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. A Speaker's Conference has just concluded its investigation into this matter, and it is possible that more seats will be given to Northern Ireland.
We see from the list of amendments that the Scottish National Party wants more European Assembly seats for Scotland, Plaid Cymru wants European seats for Wales and, indeed, every political party involved in any way with the European elections wants more seats in the Assembly.
I ask the House to consider the total arrogance of the Northern Ireland Members on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided that there should be three seats allocated to Northern Ireland to take

account of the serious divisions that exist in that part of the United Kingdom—divisions that were created and fomented by that terrible decision to partition Ireland.
The Government have not yet been able to create a system of government for Northern Ireland. The last Conservative Government tried to create a political structure which would command the support of the minority and the majority communities. That experiment was brought to a disastrous end by the actions of the loyalist strikers in 1974. We see no hope of the Conservatives even lending aid to those who are still trying desperately, in the face of considerable opposition, to create these structures.
5.0 p.m.
In putting forward their proposals for three seats and PR in Northern Ireland, the Government were saying, as they have said so often, that Northern Ireland cannot be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. Why? It is because Northern Ireland is totally different. It is situated on the island of Ireland, and we must have 15,000 troops walking the streets of Northern Ireland to keep people from killing each other.
I was at a debate last night when a supporter of unionism trotted out the argument that "We must support the Unionists in Northern Ireland because they supported us during the war." I know many people in Northern Ireland who were not Unionists and supported this country during the war, including myself. I know many people in Northern Ireland who do not give any allegiance to the concept of loyalism as we know it in Northern Ireland. So that is not a valid argument.
The Unionists believe that they can win two seats under a first-past-the-post system in Northern Ireland. They have doubts about a third seat. They say "If there were a third seat we probably would not benefit", so they have tabled an amendment to delete three and substitute two, because they cannot be sure of winning the third. This is the unbelievable argument advanced by the Unionists.
The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), speaking for the Opposition, mentioned some of the effects of introducing proportional representation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for


Down, South tries to bamboozle and mystify the Committee with his percentages and figures. He says that when PR was introduced in Northern Ireland it made no great difference, because such-and-such a percentage voted one way and such-and-such a percentage voted the other way. That is completely untrue.
When PR was introduced for local government in Northern Ireland it took control away from the Fermanagh Unionists who had controlled Fermanagh for over 50 years. It was notorious as one of the most bigoted county councils ever to exist in Northern Ireland. The chairman of its housing committee said "We are not going to build any houses for those terrible Roman Catholics because if we do we will give them votes and they might use those votes against us." People of that type controlled Fermanagh County Council at that time. PR took that grip away from them. Since then we have had a rotation of the chairmanships in that council.
Derry has been mentioned time and again. It has been said that there was a 60 per cent. nationalist majority or perhaps 65 per cent. and a 35 per cent. Unionist minority. With the gerrymandering of wards that took place, those who were in the majority had no possible chance of ever achieving any of the elected offices or any of the jobs under the control of the Deny Corporation. Since then we have had SDLP councillors, Unionist councillors and Alliance councillors, but if we were to agree with the case put forward by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland there would be absolutely no change. They believe that their voice is the only one that should be heard on behalf of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Down, South intervened on the last occasion when I was speaking when I made reference to a report issued by the Fair Employment Agency. It was the British Government that instituted that legislation and carried it through and put it on the statute book. I was proud and honoured to be a member of the Committee that considered it. Every Unionist Member was entirely opposed in Committee to every word, almost every comma, of that legislation. They said only a year ago "There is no discrimination in Northern Ireland—absolutely none. There is no need for legislation. Gerry Fitt is a

terrible liar. Don't believe anything the SDLP says."
A report was issued a week ago by the Fair Employment Agency, which was brought into existence because of a committee set up under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). It conclusively stated that there had been a lot of discrimination. I listened to the Chairman of the Fair Employment Agency on Sunday in Northern Ireland speaking on television. He said that, although the report was based on a census which took place in 1971, there was no reason to doubt that the same practices were happening now, in 1978.

Mr. William Craig: The hon. Gentleman is distorting and misrepresenting the contents of that report. The Chairman has pointedly said that the report did not say that there was any unfair discrimination in employment.

Mr. Fitt: The report said that it was two and a half times more difficult for a Catholic to obtain a job in Northern Ireland than it was for a Protestant. I do not know what sort of deduction the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) will make from that, but that is what it said. I have asked the Chairman of the Fair Employment Agency to circulate the report to every hon. Member so that we can all read it and not have to listen to the apologies. Every Member knows that it was British legislation that set up the Agency, and we should all have an opportunity to read its report.
I was referring to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who said "If we went into Europe and there were two seats or three seats we could quite adequately represent the interests of all the Northern Ireland people in Europe". I pointed out to him that that it did not seem very likely if we took into account what had happened in Committee over the Fair Employment Agency. He said "No. You have not got the point. If we went into Europe, even if we did the wrong things, there would be only three of us among 81". In other words, they would be overruled. What a sad commentary on themselves! They say "We are going to go there and be just as reactionary over there as we have been here, but you have a very good safeguard".
I believe that this attitude, which has been expressed so long and so often by the Unionists, completely justifies the Government in saying that Northern Ireland is completely different. I have some close friends in the Labour Party. Some of them are said to be on the Left and said to be Marxists. I do not care what label is put on them. I have known many of them since 1966 when I became a Member of the House. Some of them are very close colleagues of mine. I have supported them.
My record of support of the ideology of my colleagues here and the general ideology of the Government is beyond question. I went into their Lobby to help to carry the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which was carried by one vote and was bitterly opposed. There was never any doubt about my loyalty when it came to supporting the Socialist Government. Therefore, I find it a little difficult to understand how some of my friends can find any possibility of agreement with Unionist Members.
I know that there is a dislike, almost detestation, of Europe—

Mr. Stan Thorne: The Common Market.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that. I am not saying what I would have done had I been representing an English constituency. I am quite prepared to say that had I been living in Britain I might have felt—there would have been doubts—that the first-past-the-post system was not all that bad. I should probably have gone for proportional representation, but the first-past-the-post system in Britain has not been the disaster that it has been in Northern Ireland. That is why I say that Northern Ireland must be treated as being unique.
We have an alleged spokesman in Europe—John Taylor, a former junior Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs. I think that he sets himself up to be the Northern Ireland spokesman in Europe, though there are other contenders for the title. The Unionist Party would have difficulty in agreeing on candidates, no matter how many seats there were. Mr. Taylor is not elected. He is not even a member of a local authority. But he went to the Strasbourg Parliament last week and told the elected representatives "I do

not like the way in which you are operating your regional aid and cross-border development plans."
That was said by a man elected only by the voice of the Unionists, with no votes cast for him. He was referring to plans being promulgated by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Office. He said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have to account for the skulduggery in which he was engaged in trying to create better living conditions for people in the cross-border areas that have been sadly neglected for years.
How much more would the Unionists' arrogance be if they had the three seats and were speaking with a united voice in defence of their own interests? It must be remembered that the areas contiguous to the border—Fermanagh, Tyrone, Crossmaglen and Armagh—are non-Unionist areas. Unionist votes are not to be secured there. That is why the Unionists do not like any developments, because those developments will go some way to alleviate the distress of people who will not vote for them. That is the attitude the Unionists will carry into Europe, and it should be thrown out of the House.
The Conservatives may have an interest in this vote, not because they are opposed to PR on this occasion but because they hope that there may be an election soon, which may result in their needing to seek the support of hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. If that is their motive in forcing their members into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Down, South it is totally dishonest and totally unworthy of any of those Conservatives who have experience in Northern Ireland. They know how necessary it was to try to have a system of elections which gives an opportunity for all sections to be represented.
I know that many of my colleagues on the Government Benches may have mental reservations. They do not like the Common Market. I understand their opposition, but I say to them "Whatever your opposition to the Common Market, don't let it lead you into the trap of voting with that crowd on the Unionist Bench. You are not talking about the Common Market. You are talking about a one-party-ascendancy State, a one-party-ascendancy mentality that has existed in


Northern Ireland and is only now being broken down".
Unionist spokesmen have said on local television and radio this afternoon that they are happy that there will be a large abstention—

Mr. Percy Grieve: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would have conversations in which we might all join in.

Mr. Fitt: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to keep going until six o'clock, I shall give him the second half of my speech.
I was telling my colleagues "Whatever reservations you may have, don't let them force you into the Lobby with the supporters of the amendment". I have heard this afternoon that Unionist spokesmen have told local reporters that they are happy with the undertakings they have been given by some Labour Members that they will vote with them on this amendment.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Will the hon. Gentleman substantiate that?

Mr. Fitt: It can be substantiated only when the Division bells ring.
I say to the Government and Conservative Members with knowledge of Northern Ireland that there are people who are opposed to Unionism, have fought it all their lives and have seen no change in it. Unionism and loyalism have not changed. The strike of May 1974 brought any change to an end.
If there is to be any change in Conservative thinking on the amendment, let the Conservatives' spokesmen say so at the Dispatch Box. Yesterday's statement by the hon. Member for Abingdon was an indication of just how far Right the Conservative Party's swing has been. I say to my colleagues "Don't let yourselves be associated with them."

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: It has always been my ambition and intention to get Northern Ireland debates into a constructive frame of mind. I have not always succeeded. In spite of the numerous accusations made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt),

many of them unfounded, I shall not be tempted to respond in like manner, because I do not think that that is the attitude we should adopt to what is a serious matter for the whole United Kingdom, and therefore for the whole Committee.
We were gratified by the expressions and evidence of support in the earlier part of the adjourned debate for our point of view that there should be a common system of election throughout the United Kingdom for the same body.
Perhaps I may say a word about the number of seats, as that matter has featured in the discussion to a great extent this afternoon. On 14th July 1976 the Prime Minister reported on suggestions put to him that Northern Ireland should have three seats.
as opposed to the two seats which they might expect as an electoral quotient."—[Official Report, 14th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 654.]
There was no reference in the statement to the method or system of election to be employed. It dealt solely with the matter of the number of seats.
Our amendments seeking to reduce the number of seats from three to the two that the Prime Minister himself considered to be the proper electoral quotient are designed to bring us into line with, to make us absolutely consistent with, the position that we have taken up in the Speaker's Conference. Our reiterated demands in the House of Commons were simply for assurances and undertakings that Northern Ireland would be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe that it should be given no more and no less than other parts.
It was for that reason that we never asked for extra seats at Westminster. We asked simply for fair representation, and we have always contended that that is no more than our due.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Fair representation for whom?

Mr. Molyneaux: We have taken account of the views put to us in the House. I hope that it may make some appeal to those hon. Members below the Gangway who were at the receiving end of some extraordinary reasoning at the latter end of the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West when I say that we


have taken account of the view that Northern Ireland should accept three seats. Therefore, we shall not move our amendments which were designed to reduce the number to two.
We take account of the feeling that it should be possible for the non-Unionists—I prefer to use that term—to return a representative for one of the three Northern Ireland seats if they desire. Of course, we cannot promise that that will be so, but we subscribe to the view, which I think is commonly held on both sides of the Chamber, that at least they should have the opportunity.
I hope that this will do something to ease the hon. Gentleman's problems and that this gesture will be regarded as a contribution to a more reasonable approach. It may also contribute to a certain defusing of feeling on the political scene in Northern Ireland. We have therefore concluded that the combination of three seats for Northern Ireland with the simple first-past-the-post method of voting would provide the most acceptable solution for all concerned. It is important to remind ourselves that on 13th December the Committee rejected a proposal that a form of PR should be used to elect representatives to the European Assembly.

Mr. Clement Freud: If it is parity that the hon. Gentleman is after, surely it would be sensible to wait for the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and then aim for parity in line with the new representation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: No, I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The matter that we are discussing is not relevant to the Speaker's Conference. We are saying that we want parity. It is the view of the House of Commons—I hope that the Liberal Party will not disagree with it—that we should accept three seats so that non-Unionists in Northern Ireland have an opportunity, to put it no higher, of electing someone to represent them. I hope that that is acceptable to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Freud: It was the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who said that, in view of parity, he felt that it was unfair to claim more seats. I was

saying that if as a result of the Speaker's Conference, of which much has been written in today's newspapers, the number is increased, surely parity will be affected.

Mr. Molyneaux: No. Any result of the Speaker's Conference could not possibly affect the electors in Northern Ireland. We have the Prime Minister's own words, namely, that the two seats represented the quota for Northern Ireland and that that was in line with the representation from Scotland and Wales. There cannot be any dispute about that.
On 13th December in Committee we took the decision not to use a form of PR for election to the European Assembly. The Committee took its decision in the full knowledge of what the consequences would be for minority parties—or perhaps I should say smaller minority parties—in Parliament and in the country. The Committee did not set out to discriminate against minorities. After careful consideration, it concluded that the advantages of the simple majority system outweighed all other considerations.
It happened that the Government had made provision in Clause 3(2) to ensure that the same thinking should not automatically be applied in one part of the United Kingdom, namely, Northern Ireland. Admittedly, when that clause and subsection were drafted seven months ago, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic probably felt that it was the most likely system to benefit non-Unionists and would be more beneficial than the simple majority system. I am not so sure that the United Kingdom Government would now go for the same option in the light of much more detailed calculations that show conclusively that the opposite is more likely to be the case, and that non-Unionists would stand more chance of being elected on the simple majority system given three seats in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Sir Myer, but I appear to be interrupting a conversation on the Government Benches. I apologise to you, Sir Myer.
Even if the Government still adhere to their original belief, namely, that a section of the minority will benefit from PR, what possible justification can there be for putting a Northern Ireland minority, or a section of that minority,


in a privileged position compared with the other minorities—perhaps far more significant minorities—in Great Britain?
I hope that the Liberal Party will not mind if I mention that it has taken a great deal of stick for its stance in supporting Her Majesty's Government. It must be thinking this matter over and must surely be asking itself "Is it not so that in the eyes of the Government we have supported some minorities appear to be more important than others?"

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: It should be on the record that the Government proposed a proportional system for the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is not true to say that there are different standards. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there should be a special case. I remind him that it was a Liberal Prime Minister who introduced PR in 1921 in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, Northern Ireland as distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government of the day stopped short of introducing it for the whole of the United Kingdom, and it does not seem that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals have found great favour with the majority of Members of the House of Commons in terms of the United Kingdom as a whole.
My plea to the Committee is not to depart from the position that it took on an earlier occasion. Times have changed in Northern Ireland since my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) moved his amendment on 12th January. In the interval there has been a growing sensitivity to anything that would even appear to weaken constitutional stability. Mr. Lynch and certain other influential spokesmen have rather incautiously expounded a totally new doctrine that seems to disavow the simple democratic stance that I think would be acceptable in the House of Commons, namely, that there can be no change of sovereignty until the majority so desires. Their statements are bound to have a most unsettling effect.
The people of Northern Ireland look for reassurance in the face of what has now become political warfare. That has to be added to the terrorist warfare to which they have been subjected. Such

reassurance cannot be provided by imposing on one small part of the United Kingdom an electoral system that is utterly different from that designed for the rest.
It has been said time and again from both sides of the Chamber that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. That assertion will have a hollow ring if the Parliament in which the people of Northern Ireland have placed their trust decrees that a different system shall be used to elect from Northern Ireland to the same body. In this case it is all the more serious because we are discussing elections to an external body.
We have heard the complaint that Northern Ireland is different. My plea to the Committee is to avoid taking any step that will perpetuate that difference. It is our policy in all matters that Northern Ireland shall not be different in any way from the rest of the United Kingdom. Only a few hours ago the Prime Minister, from the Treasury Bench, urged that there should be a national approach to Northern Ireland matters. I heartily endorse that view, and I trust that the Committee will endorse it

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Until the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke, it was possible that we should have two debates on Northern Ireland, one on the method of election, which we continue to debate, followed by a debate on the number of seats.
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has disposed of the second debate, but I pick up one point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in our earlier discussion. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us, as I think his hon. Friend did today, that the Prime Minister said in the House some months ago that the number of seats for Northern Ireland was a matter for us. Whatever was said at that time—there was a great deal of romancing as to who had decided what and where—the number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland is a matter for us.
I make the further point that the method of election that we decided for the United Kingdom as a whole—and that we shall decide relatively soon for one part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland—is also a matter for the House of Commons. It is not a matter


that comes within the rules or regulations of the EEC.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It will be.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman says that it will be. I thought that in the last few months I had learned that in discussions views change. Later tonight we are to have a wide-ranging discussion. As of now, it will remain so if I have my way.
The Committee will decide on first-past-the-post for the United Kingdom as a whole. I recommend that we reject the amendment—namely, that there should be first-past-the-post for the United Kingdom as a whole and the single transferable vote system for Northern Ireland.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the dilemma facing Labour Members to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) rightly referred? Some of us are opposed to the Bill per se and naturally are opposed to any method of proportional representation that would enable the Government to bring in such legislation and to act upon it expeditiously. We see the question of STV in a vastly different light—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I must ask the hon. Member to limit the length of his intervention.

Mr. Rees: I have the point that my hon. Friend was making. Indeed, it might save me a little time because he put it so clearly. We are talking about the method of election to the European Assembly.

Mr. Thorne: For Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees: But we are discussing the matter in the context of the problem in Northern Ireland with which we have been concerned for the last eight years and had varying degrees of success or of failure, however we look at it.
The argument that I want to deploy takes note of the fact that there is a special, unique problem in Northern Ireland. I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South reads and thinks a great deal about the part of the United King

dom that he represents. We do not want to make the mistake that was repeated decade after decade in the last century, namely, for Englishmen, and Welshmen, too, no doubt, to consider the problem of Northern Ireland viewed only from this side of the water. It was in that context that many mistakes were made. Let us consider the problem in the context of Northern Ireland. It is on that basis that I wish to deploy my argument.

Mr. Powell: So the criteria that the Secretary of State will put forward are criteria that would apply precisely to election to the House of Commons of Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. Therefore, he is going to justify STV as a method of election to this place.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is right that, if the argument that I am deploying is right, Northern Ireland is different. Therefore, let us have a different form of election for the EEC. I fully accept that the logic of what I am saying applies there.
What will determine the view of the Government on that proposition at the end of the day? I understand—I do not know what the outcome will be—that there is a Speaker's Conference on seats for Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that with extra seats in Northern Ireland—I have been looking at the division of districts, and so on—there will be a different attitude to the matter. This is not the time to consider that aspect. However, with extra seats there is no doubt that there can be extra representation of the minority community. I suggest that we should deal with that part of the question now and come to the other part later.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in 1974 the loyalist-cum-Unionist votes in Northern Ireland amounted to 52 per cent. and that that enabled them to get 11 seats in this place and to wreck the whole of the Sunning-dale experiment?

Mr. Rees: I could give many reasons for the Sunningdale experiment failing We could indulge here in making a list. Those with 92 out of 100 could get a certain mark. The 92 out of 100 mark could be the greatest failure of all time because the last eight may be the kernel of the problem. When I went to Northern


Ireland as Secretary of State I discovered that the fact that all seats for the Westminster Parliament had been won was a major factor in affecting emotion in the loyalist community. However, that emotion in the loyalist community was there anyway. In my view, it was no more than a factor.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The Secretary of State indicated that he was contemplating proportional representation as the system of election for the increased number of Members from Northern Ireland to the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Rees: No.

Mr. Kilfedder: Was the right hon. Gentleman not hinting at that?

Mr. Rees: I think that to allow one's thoughts to broaden a little in certain company leads to trouble. Perhaps I may make the position clear. I was not contemplating anything. The right hon. Member for Down, South properly took me up on the argument that, if I were arguing for speciality on the basis of election to the European Parliament, that would apply to the argument about election to the Westminster Parliament. I am not contemplating anything. I should hate the Protestant Telegraph in Belfast or any other newspaper of great circulation in Northern Ireland to have that as a headline. I was musing, which is perfectly proper in the course of a debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to ask the Secretary of State one question on the matter of new seats for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible for other minority parties to be represented at Westminster. Is he aware that the seats with large constituency numbers are on the east and on the west of the Bann and that, unless he is prepared to give 22 seats to Northern Ireland, there will not be a large number of minority parties represented?

Mr. Rees: That shows the weakness of musing. At the moment there are 12 seats in Northern Ireland. I do not know how many are to be recommended. I was led in that direction by the logic of the right hon. Member for Down, South, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am recom

mending that there should be a single transferable vote for the three seats in one constituency in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Martin Flannery: As a prelude to my question, will my right hon. Friend accept from me that, having spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the minority community regards the vote on this matter as one of the most important votes that has ever taken place in the House of Commons? I should like to ask a question based on that matter. The troubles in Northern Ireland clearly spring from the minority community having a sense of a complete lack of democracy in the past—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Whilst I am in the Chair, I shall not permit any hon. Member to use the subterfuge of an intervention to make a speech. I must ask the hon. Member to make his question as brief as possible.

Mr. Flannery: The question that I should like to ask, based on the prelude that I have already outlined, is: if the minority community is again totally defeated in an election, shall we not be returning to the past from which we hoped a little step had been taken, and would not the hand of the IRA and the mirror image forces of the IRA be massively strengthened?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend raises a matter with which I shall deal a little later. It is an important point and I shall return to it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South mentioned a matter on which I am sensitive. I want to make clear a matter that anybody who has worked in Northern Ireland will know, and I know that many Opposition Members visit the Province frequently. In arguing the way I do on behalf of the Government, in no way could I personally depart from the strong feeling that was expressed in the Downing Street declaration in 1969, namely, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and that without the consent of its people there can be no change. That view was expressed in 1973 in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act by the Conservative Administration, and it is a view that we support.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made this clear


in the furore over the speech by the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but it is a special part. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and others have made this clear on a number of occasions. He put the matter in the context of our having in the Province 13,000 soldiers and of there being direct rule. He also mentioned the economic aid which has been properly given in that part of the United Kingdom.
In view of the agonising discussions on this subject in the House of Commons in the last seven or eight years, it must be agreed that Northern Ireland is different. Therefore, one has to have a different way of dealing with this part of the United Kingdom, which is part of the ancient Province of Ulster. However, I am in no sense arguing that this means that that Province is a lesser part of the United Kingdom or one that can be pushed aside at any time. That is not within the gift of any Government at Westminster.
These matters do not arise as a result of any words that are said. I learned in 1974 that words were not enough. I learned that, quite apart from what was said in conferences, speeches and editorials on this side of the water, one had to understand the basic feelings in Northern Ireland. I respect those feelings, even if I do not agree with them. We are by no means saying that from an electoral point of view Northern Ireland is expendable, because it certainly is not. That is the view of the Government, and it is my personal feeling—a feeling that is reinforced by many friends in Northern Ireland, and no doubt by many enemies, too. However, that feeling exists and I shall never depart from it.
Let me turn to the next point on policy. We must sometimes examine unusual ways of dealing with the problems of Northern Ireland. We all know that one can play with words, and when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I was advised not to use the phrase "power sharing" or whatever the "in" word was at the time. The phrase "power sharing" probably means one thing to one set of people and another thing to others. I do no care very much about that consideration. Let us not have any clever stuff about hiving off Derry because one

seat happens to be in another county, and let us not concern ourselves with cutting off the area at the bottom so that one can include more Protestants. No such move will ever have success. This will have to be achieved in respect of the whole of Northern Ireland and in relation to what we have inherited. It is in that context that we must deal with the matter rather than to concentrate too much on ideas that are sometimes floated so as to draw up the boundaries to give constituencies which the Catholics could win—a kind of institutionalised gerrymandering. I would not give that task to the Boundary Commission to undertake. One cannot instruct the Boundary Commission to deal with a city in that way.
5.45 p.m.
One can muse on these matters, but I hope that my friends from Northern Ireland will not take this musing too far. I once examined the idea—and I did no more than examine it—of dividing Northern Ireland into cantons. I hope the foreign word will not frighten some people. The idea of cantons was to make it possible to have some parts of Northern Ireland where the minority community could take the lead. However, when the matter was put into the computer and all the rest of it, it was not found to be possible as a proposal.
The reason that that idea did not succeed was that we considered that we should not be dealing with Northern Ireland as a whole but would, in effect, be dividing Northern Ireland. The scheme we have put forward involves the single transferable vote for Northern Ireland as a whole, from Derry City to Newry and the Newry and Mourne District Council. We wish to deal with the matter on that basis, and I must point out that I am not trying to win a battle that I lost some months ago when the House decided on a first-past-the-post system. Let us then attempt to be different in dealing with the problem.

Mr. Freud: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland has always felt, with some justification, that Northern Ireland was an institutionally gerrymandered Province?

Mr. Rees: I do not know the answer to that question. If it were to be institutionalised, it would have to be done by


the Boundary Commission, and that might be less offensive. The main point I wish to make is that this election should be carried out with the Province as one constituency.
The point has already been made that proportional representation of this kind would give more representative results. I remind the House that STV provides for PR. It envisages multi-Member constituencies in which the feelings could be totted up. The vote can be transferred to a second or subsequent choice, and so on. I shall have to remind myself of the system by looking at my notes, but these matters do not need to be drawn to the attention of anybody in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West said, this used to be the system used in local elections in 1920, and it was again introduced by the Conservative Government in 1973.
I reread the debates that took place on this matter, and passionate pleas were made for STV in Northern Ireland to deal with what the then Secretary of State desired to do. We have used that system in local elections, and in elections to the Assembly and to the Convention. Let us not look at these matters with blinkered eyes but let us decide to handle this matter on the basis of the STV. There is a history of STV in Northern Ireland, and it applies to Northern Ireland as a whole.
I have carried out a little arithmetic on this matter, and examined the different parts of the problem. I have also looked at the matter as a whole and looked at the votes that were cast in the plebiscite. When I examined the local elections, I discovered that there were polls of 50 per cent. In Northern Ireland the votes are much higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Frank Maguire: They vote when they are dead.

Mr. Rees: Whatever the reason, the electorate in Northern Ireland votes at a very high rate. I know that even on this system of STV there is no guarantee of what will happen. There is no guarantee about how people in Northern Ireland will vote. There will be various bands of voters. There will be Provisional Sinn Fein, and Official Sinn Fein no doubt standing, as its members usually do,

under Republican Clubs. There will be a variety. There will also be in Northern Ireland the provincial scene. Individual people will be seen on a wider ticket. That might bring unusual results.

Mr. Fitt: Archbishop O'Fiaich would be a good candidate.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman says that the Archbishop would be a good candidate. We shall see.
I am saying that Northern Ireland is different. It is different in so many ways. It is different for the same reason that the Conservative Government, up to 1973, argued to the House of Commons. Every argument that they used at that time still stands. Nothing is different in that respect about Northern Ireland. This is a means of trying to get the people of Northern Ireland to work together for the good of Northern Ireland as a whole and not in penny packets in different parts of Norhern Ireland.
Therefore, it is only on the basis of PR, STV, that the minority community will have any chance of direct representation in the European Assembly. The Government's view is that that is the way to do it.
I say again that if any hon. Members vote today on the basis of strongly-felt feelings because of the EEC argument, they will be doing what has been done so many times before—forgetting the particular problem of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. There is no way of shuffling it off. There is no way of doing that with Irish stories to show that it is all a bit peculiar. None of that will do. It is our responsibility. Our responsibility means STV. Let us vote for the needs of Northern Ireland and not for some transient feeling here.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: When the Committee began to debate this amendment on 12th January I tried to make clear the views of the Opposition Benches. I would not have felt the need to intervene again in the debate had it not been for suggestions that I have seen in the Press today, particularly on the front page of The Guardian which were reflected, though not in any unfair or unreasonable way, by the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am referring to suggestions that there


has been some change in the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench as compared with our attitude of three weeks ago. That is not so, and it can be shown not to be so.
The view that we hold this evening is the same as that which I expressed on 12th January. Much more important than that, it is the same view as that expressed in July of last year when this Bill was first debated in its first incarnation last Session. Last July, exactly the same point of view was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). We did not agree with the later amendment in the name of right hon. and hon. Members of the Ulster Unionist Bench, which would have reduced the allocation of Northern Ireland seats from three to two. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) on what he said on that point today. I think that he is wise not to press to a vote that suggestion of a reduction in Ulster representation.
However, we agree, and have always agreed, with the theme embodied in the amendment that we are now discussing, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The elections that we are now discussing—this is a point to which the Home Secretary did not address himself—are quite different in their nature from those elections to which the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Belfast, West have referred, which were held in Northern Ireland under STV. The point about those elections is that they were held in Northern Ireland, and held in Northern Ireland alone. The point about the elections that we are now discussing—this is the essential point—is that, unlike the elections to which the Home Secretary referred, they are being held throughout the United Kingdom at the same time. Therefore, we believe that the comparisons to which so many references have been made do not seem valid on this occasion.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Are not local government elections held throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but in Northern Ireland they are held under STV whereas we have the first-past-the-post system, and so on?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts he will find that that is not so. The elections to which reference has been made were Northern Ireland elections. Here we are talking about United Kingdom elections for a European Assembly or Parliament.

Mr. Frank Maguire: Has the hon. Member visited Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hurd: I have—very recently. As the hon. Member has inquired, let me say that I went there on the day after our previous discussion of this matter, and ringing in my ears were the views of hon. Members that this was a matter to which enormous importance was attached. I listened to many people in Northern Ireland. Not one of them raised the matter at all.

Mr. Frank Maguire: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I have given way. Time is limited. I have a certain amount more to say. I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention. I should now like to continue, in view of the very limited time available.

Mr. Frank Maguire: Will the hon. Member give way?

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) does not desire to give way, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) cannot press him to do so.

Mr. Hurd: All right. I shall give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Frank Maguire: I understand that the hon. Member has actually spent a day in Northern Ireland. Is that right? Does that entitle the hon. Member to speak authoritatively on the subject? Could I go to the hon. Member's constituency and spend about four hours there and then speak for his constituents?

Mr. Michael Mates: Why does the hon. Member not come here more often?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) for his historic intervention. I am trying to respond, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to a debate on an amendment and a clause of the European


Assembly Elections Bill. By a coincidence, I had an opportunity to discuss this matter in Northern Ireland in the circumstances that I described.
Our belief, and the principle to which we hold, is that where elections are held across the kingdom on the same day they should be held under the same system in all parts of the kingdom, and that if they are not so held, there will be renewed doubt and renewed speculation in Northern Ireland about the intentions of the House of Commons and the present Government towards the constitutional position of the Province.
It is surely dangerous to multiply without necessary cause special arrangements, exceptions and all the ways in which Northern Ireland is made different from the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely, if we persist in treating Northern Ireland as abnormal and exceptional in all circumstances we make it more likely that the abnormal and exceptional features that exist will be perpetuated. Surely, we should be on the other tack, trying to reduce and confine what is exceptional in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.
We have thought seriously about this problem over recent months. We have concluded that the overriding principle should be that where elections of this kind, quite different from local elections or elections for the Convention or the Assembly, are held for the first time in the United Kingdom, across the kingdom, on the same day, it would be unwise to hold them in Ulster under a different system from that under which they are held in the rest of the kingdom.

Mr. Thorpe: Are we saying that it is more unwise to have two different electoral systems operating in one election—as happened, for example, when we had university seats elected by a different system, which the Conservative Party did not want to abolish and sought to continue—than to run the very real risk that under the first-past-the-post system it is unlikely in the extreme that the non-Unionists minority would get any representation at all?

Mr. Hurd: There are two views from qualified people as to what would happen in the third constituency. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Frank Maguire: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I do not want to predict the results of the elections.
For the reasons I have given, which we believe to be overriding, on grounds both of prudence and of principle, I suggest that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are present should support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Not all Unionists—

It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [26th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 241.

Division No. 92]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Channon, Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Alison, Michael
Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodhew, Victor


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair


Banks, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Gorst, John


Bell, Ronald
Cope, John
Gould, Bryan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cormack, Patric[...]
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony
Hannam, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Emery, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Brooke, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel
Howell, David (Guildford)


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hurd, Douglas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fox, Marcus
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carson, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)




Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Skinner, Dennis


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Spearing, Nigel


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow West)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lamond, James
Paisley, Rev Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stanley, John


Lawson, Nigel
Percival, Ian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter


Luce, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Macfarlane, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


MacGregor, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rhodes, James R.
Wakeham, John


Mates, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mather, Carol
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shepherd, Colin
Winterton, Nicholas


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shersby, Michael



Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neave, Airey
Sims, Roger
Mr. H. McCusker and


Nelson, Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Neil Marten.


Neubert, Michael






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell


Ashton, Joe
Dykes, Hugh
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John(Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamborn, Harry


Bain, Mrs Margaret
English, Michael
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus


Bates, Alf
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Litterick, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (Newton)
Luard, Evan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
[...]wing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fairgrieve, Russell
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boardman, H.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McElhone, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Madden, Max


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Freud, Clement
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.(Cardiff SE)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Carter, Ray
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Cartwright, John
Harper, Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mikardo, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Cohen, Stanley
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Cook, Robin F.(Edin C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Roland


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Crowther, Stan(Rotherham)
Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Noble, Mike


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
John, Brynmor
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ovenden, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Doig, Peter
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pardoe, John




Park, George
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Parker, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael


Penhaligon, David
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Watkins, David


P[...]rry, Ernest
Snape, Peter
Watkinson, John


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stallard, A. W.
Weetch, Ken


Price, William (Rugby)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Weitzman, David


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stott, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Richardson, Miss Jo
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roderick, Caerwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Roper, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Woodall, Alec


Ryman, John
Tierney, Sydney
Woof, Robert


Sainsbury, Tim
Tinn, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomney, Frank



Sever, John
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Ted Graham.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 59.

Division No. 93]
AYES
[6.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dykes, Hugh
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Alison, Michael
Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh


Anderson, Donald
English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maquire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
Marks, Kenneth


Bates, Alf
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N w'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freud, Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Peter
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Golding, John
Moyle, Roland


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hardy, Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Campbell, Ian
Harper, Joseph
Pardoe, John


Carter, Ray
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parker, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Pendry, Tom


Clarke, Ken[...] (Rushcliffe)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Penhaligon, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Horam, John
Perry, Ernest


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, William (Rugby)


Corbett, Robin
Huckfield, Les
Radice, Giles


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hurd, Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cunningham, Dr J.(Whiteh)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Judd, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)




Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Tomlinson, John
Whitlock, William


Snape, Peter
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
Wilson, R(Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Weetch, Ken



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ted Graham and


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Thomas Cox.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Kerr, Russell
Rathbone, Tim


Bean, R. E.
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bell, Ronald
Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo


Biffen, John
Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bradford, Rev Robert
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Litterick, Tom
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Carson, John
Loyden, Eddie
Ryman, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
McCusker, H.
Scott, Nicholas


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (Newton)
Marten, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Milkardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Molloy, William
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley



Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. John Ellis and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Roger Moate.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. George Reid: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 12. leave out '81' and insert '89'.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 17, in page 1, line 12, leave out '81' and insert '91'.

No. 124, in page 1, line 12, leave out '81' and insert '112'.

No. 94, in page 1, line 14, leave out '66' and insert '67'.

No. 125, in page 1, line 14, leave out '66' and insert '93'.

No. 20, in page 1, line 15, leave out '8' and insert '16'.

No. 126, in page 1, line 15, leave out '8' and insert '10'.

No. 21, in page 1, line 16, leave out '4' and insert '14'.

No. 127, in page 1. line 16, leave out '4' and insert '6'.

No. 95, in page 1, line 17, leave out '3' and insert '2'.

No. 46, in Schedule 1, page 11, line 15, leave out '79' and insert '87'.

No. 47, in page 11, line 15, leave out '79' and insert '89'.

No. 128, in page 11, line 15, leave out '79' and insert '110'.

No. 129, in page 11, line 17, leave out '66' and insert '93'.

No. 50, in page 11, line 18, leave out '8' and insert '16'.

No. 130, in page 11, line 18, leave out '8' and insert '10'.

No. 51, in page 11, line 19, leave out '4' and insert '14'.

No. 131, in page 11, line 19, leave out '4' and insert '6'.

Mr. Reid: It would be very foolish to pretend that the block of amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is any more than a mere marker for the future. It gives an indication of the size and scope of the representation that Scotland could reasonably expect in the European Parliament if it had full self-government. It is


a clear commitment to equality of treatment between countries of comparable size.
And it is recognition that Scotland is in a real political dilemma. Scotland and Denmark have roughly the same population, yet Denmark gets 16 European seats and Scotland gets only half that number.
The House of Commons has been playing the numbers game this afternoon From all quarters come proposals to increase the numbers of British MPs going en bloc to Strasbourg or Luxembourg. That may be good gamesmanship, but it is no practical good in international politics.
In proposing 16 seats for Scotland I am not suggesting that England should be robbed of eight seats to make up the difference. I am simply putting down a marker for the future. So long as the United Kingdom is stuck with 81 seats, we are in a stymied situation. Scotland can get parity of representation only through independence.
The situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. Scotland and Denmark have populations of the same size, yet Denmark has double the representation. Southern Ireland has half the population of Scotland, yet it gets 15 seats. Luxembourg, with half the population of our capital city of Edinburgh, gets six seats. One Scots Member in the European Parliament will be representing 600,000 people, while an MP from Luxembourg will be representing 60,000—one-tenth of that number. The Irish and Danish MPs will each represent 205,000 and 315,000 respectively. Against these figures, it is not surprising that many Scots people feel disadvantaged, dismayed and annoyed.
Scotland is an old nation, as old as Denmark or Ireland, yet one Scotsman is now apparently worth only one-third of an Irishman or one-half of a Dane. When major matters come before the European Parliament, such as the fishing question, which involves the Scots and the Danes, the Danes will have double the number of votes, double the representation in committee and double the number of speeches. That is just not on.
As a member of the Select Committee on Direct Elections, I was very impressed by the consensus of Scottish evidence on this point. This suggested that Scotland should be closer to parity with

Denmark. The Labour Committee for Europe said in evidence:
The gross disparity can only lead to a strong bias against the Community in areas such as Scotland.
The organisation Scotland in Europe, which is certainly not a front for the SNP, said:
The view is very strongly held in all sections of the Scottish electorate that some way must be found of giving Scotland sufficient seats to bring it into some sort of balance with Denmark.
It then warned that, if this did not happen,
The question of Scottish seats will rumble on as a political issue for years and years.
I believe that that is true.
Politicians of such diverse views as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) have given similar views in Committee and on the Floor of the House. In the debate in April last year, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North gave a plain warning when he said:
I do not see how Scotland can be represented in the European Assembly with those numbers."—[Official Report, 20th April, 1977; Vol. 930, c. 300.]
For once I am in agreement with him.
In the period between April last year and now we had hoped to see some movement towards a compromise by the Government. We had hoped that the Government would accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Devon, North of 10 seats for Scotland or that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North of 12 seats. These figures could have been kept within the total British number of 81 seats. However, there has been precious little movement from either the Government or the official Opposition.
As in the debate on the Scotland Bill, the logic of the position seen from Scotland is clear. Either we Scots continue as a British province—and there is a perfectly legitimate case for that—or we go it alone and find that the next General Election will take us further down the road of seeking Scottish representation at the top table of Europe as of right and ending the second division status that our eight European Members would have.
In its evidence to the Select Committee on Direct Elections, the SNP faced up squarely to the problem of ensuring the


balance between the large States and the small communities. We proposed then that every State should have six seats, plus one for every 700,000 voters. Had this proposal been adopted, Scotland and Denmark would have been reasonably in balance, and the comparable English regions would have had roughly the same representation. But that was not to be. Europe has been carved up in a most arbitrary manner with small States being catered for most generously. The nations that are buried in a multinational State. however, have not.
I have five reasons for wanting to increase our representation. We are not a region; we are a nation. Those who compare the English regions with Scotland are not comparing like with like. We are one of the oldest nations in Europe, and we have 1,000 years of history behind us. Secondly, we are unique in having our own distinctive legal and administrative system based on Continental models. I know of no other unitary EEC State which has separate and distinct systems of law.
6.30 p.m.
Thirdly, we are placed on the northernmost periphery of the EEC. Our strategic importance is out of all proportion to our size and of the utmost importance to the Western world, especially with the Soviet fleet at Murmansk. Fourthly, we have major marine and energy resources which are vital not only to the British Isles but to the European Community at large and which will become increasingly so.
Fifthly, in Scotland we have our own regional diversity. That is why we need a Highland scat. We have a scattered population which occupies one-third of the land mass of the British Isles. That is the reason for always having a slight weighting of 12 or 13 per cent. in the number of Scots who come here.
We should also look at the Community in terms of the specialisation of Members. I understand that a representative in the European Parliament requires a greater degree of specialised knowledge than does a Member of the House of Commons. That specialisation will not be possible if Scotland is given only eight seats. One or two of the Members would have to be lawyers. I wonder whether the

other six or seven would be able to spread their interests across such diverse issues as oil and fish, our large electronics industry and the treaty industries of coal and steel. I doubt that they will.
I am sure that, with the Danes and the Irish having double the representation of the Scots, however, the issue will not go away. The arrival of the Scottish Assembly—though I have my doubts whether it will come during this Parliament—certainly will increase the feeling of distinctiveness and Scottishness north of the border. Much of the money devolved by the House of Commons to the Assembly will fall within the general competence of the EEC. Lord Kilbrandon was right when he said that Edinburgh will talk increasingly—and directly—to Brussels and that the London link will wither away.
With no seat as of right at the top table and with only half the representation of Denmark, the sense of being poor relations will grow. In that sense, comparisons with English regions are invalid.
As I have said, we are in a stymied situation because the representation for the British Isles cannot be changed. The only way to square the cricle is for Scotland to go it alone and seek separate membership of the EEC. We shall have to say bluntly to the Europeans No deal on fish, no deal on oil. "Our interests will be better served on our own than as part of an increasingly bankrupt British State. Only then will Scotland get the parity that it merits.
I said that I was putting down a marker for the future. I do not expect any movement on the number of Scots seats today, nor would I suggest disadvantaging the English. But anyone who seriously thinks that we shall be content with eight seats is wrong. Anyone who thinks that this issue will go away is wrong. It will rumble on for years.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has given us a variation on his normal theme of separation. He has set out five reasons why Scotland should have increased representation. His first reason was the nub of it all. He has a vision of Scotland as a separate unit. On that basis he compared Scotland with other nation States. He happened to choose the


analogy of Denmark, but had he chosen Luxembourg he might have had four or more times the number of seats that he proposes. Therein lies the basic difference—whether the United Kingdom is to be represented at Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg as a united unit or whether there should be separate units for Scotland, Wales and England.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: The reason why Luxembourg has six seats, which is disproportionate to its population, is that the member States recognise that it is not possible to function with fewer than six seats. Six is recognised as a minimum to provide any kind of presence for a member State.
It is unworthy to argue that we should claim twice as many seats. We are not asking for that. We do not grudge Luxembourg its seats, because six is the minimum. We say that when the number is above six the population should be taken into account.

Mr. Anderson: The SNP's argument is based on a difference in concept. Are we a United Kingdom, or should there be separate sovereign units within the United Kingdom? The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said that there was a separate legal and administrative system in Scotland. I cannot see how a separate legal system has any relevance to the number of representatives that there should be in a Parliament.
The hon. Member's second argument for increased representation rested on Scotland's decisive role in the defence of the West. He probably knows that the EEC has no defence responsibilities, although some people allege that it is a political arm of NATO. There are no defence responsibilities within the competence of the EEC. Therefore, that argument also is irrelevant.
The third argument concerned energy resources. That argument could also apply to the coal and natural gas resources in England. Is the hon. Member saying that, if one part of the United Kingdom has a resource, that entitles it to more representation than another part of the United Kingdom?
The hon. Member also argued that Scotland comprised about one-third of our total land mass. He is on firmer ground there, because it has been accepted

that larger rural areas should be entitled to a greater proportion of seats. Indeed, Scotland already has, or will have on these figures, a proportion of seats to population which is larger than a mathematical ratio would justify. This argument has some validity and could be pursued.
The hon. Member argued that eight Scottish Assemblymen could not cover the diversity of the relatively limited functions that are within the competence of the Community. That is odd when one considers that 100 American senators cover the whole diversity of responsibilities in the United States.
When faced with a choice of seeking an attainable and realistic goal or something which is wholly unrealistic and is simply put forward for publicity or to be in accordance with separatist views, the nationalists invariably choose the latter and leave out the more realistic matters. There might have been some validity if the suggestion involved a limited increase in the number of seats.
I stray to the Welsh nationalists. They are not quite as modest as the Scottish nationalists, who suggest only that their numbers should be doubled from eight to 16. The Welsh nationalists want an increase from four to 14. One wonders on what basis and by what comparison they make that suggestion. Why should they not be a little more grandiose in their aspirations and suggest a proportion equal to that of Luxembourg, which would provide eight times the number of seats allocated?
If it is in order on this amendment, I shall deal with the Scottish and the Welsh suggestions since they cover some of the same general points. For Wales I would accept that there is a strong case for a modest increase, more modest than that suggested by the Welsh nationalists, from the present figure of four to five. That is suggested not on the basis of a concept of Wales as an independent sovereign unit but rather on the normal criteria applied in this country of population, distance, size of constituencies, geographical factors and the sort of problems that will face any Member of the European Parliament in endeavouring to carry out his tasks on behalf of a widely-spread area.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Member is ignoring what for


us is a basic fact—that is, the nationhood of Scotland and Wales. We want to see that nationhood recognised. It is not just on grounds of democracy or justice that we in Wales object to the fact that we have only four Members while Luxembourg, with the population of Gwent, has six. That is an affront to our nationhood.

Mr. Anderson: I rest my argument on the basis of justice. The hon. Gentleman repeats his claim of nationhood up and down Wales, and he has had a consistent and rather negative response—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Claim?

Mr. Anderson: Yes, claim. The claim is that Wales is or should be a separate nation, and it is on the merits or otherwise of that claim that we shall be regaling our respective electorates at the next General Election.
On the present allocation of four seats, Wales, compared with Scotland which has eight, is doing less well. Whereas Northern Ireland and Scotland have their proportion of seats to their ratio of population rounded up, in the case of Wales the figure is rounded down. Let me give the figures. Scotland has 7·5 per cent. of the total electorate, and yet it is proposed that it has eight Assemblymen. Northern Ireland, with a mere 2·1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom electorate, is allocated three seats. The allocation for Wales, which has 4·1 per cent. of the total electorate, is rounded down to four.
There is also a problem which is likely to face the Boundary Commissioners in drawing boundaries in Wales on the basis of four seats. Wales is comprised of roughly two areas. There is the major part, the highly-populated industrial valleys of Wales, there are the counties—the three Glamorgans and Gwent, which comprise 63·6 per cent. of the total population—and there is the rest of Wales, which is mainly rural in composition. That compromises 36·3 per cent. of the electorate. If the seats are to be drawn on the basis of community of interest, contiguity and so on, it will be difficult to give two seats to the industrial areas and two to the rural areas, or to decide which parts of the industrial areas should be detached to link with rural areas. Even if that were so, the size of the constituencies would be very large and would

hardly make for effective or easy representation.

6.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am following my hon. Friend's argument, and I accept that there are some rural problems which are not shared everywhere in Wales. But is it not one of the features of Welsh parliamentary constituencies even now that, whereas a seat may be industrial in one part, it is rural in another? I think of my own constituency, which has a very industrial north but a large farming population in the south. The same is true of both my neighbours.

Mr. Anderson: But even where there are groupings of seven or eight seats the rural element, which is a portion of a constituency such as that of my hon. Friend, is tiny. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the broad distinction between the great land mass of rural Wales, representing approximately one-third of the population and including the whole of North and Mid-Wales and a substantial part of West Wales, and the counties of Glamorgan and Gwent, which are in their ethos a heavily industrial structure, although clearly with rural parts.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman entertain the further consideration that with four seats it will be virtually impossible to provide a result which will in any way reflect the balance of political forces in Wales? With five seats it would become easier to envisage a result which would reflect the political balance of the parties.

Mr. Anderson: I have not followed through the political results; perhaps that is evidence of naivety and an indication of my objectivity in trying to deal with the allocation of seats. If the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) speaks in the debate, I hope he will expand that point as yet a further reason for increasing from four to five the allocation of seats to Wales.
I think that this allocation could be achieved within the total of 81 seats which is, because of our international obligations, an immutable number. It is unrealistic to suggest that that number should be increased from 81 to 91, but reducing the English total from 66 to


65, which would not be noticed in the totality of English seats, would have considerable advantages for Wales.
I hope that on the grounds of both justice and effectiveness of representation my hon. Friend the Minister will examine very seriously the arguments in favour of this modest increase in Welsh representation and will bring the matter back to the House at a later stage.

Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member has not made the case for taking one seat away from England, a suggestion which he made rather casually. Surely his case should logically be to increase the overall number of seats from 81 to 82.

Mr. Anderson: No. I have to accept, because of our international obligations, that the overall total for the United Kingdom has been established in conjunction with the seats allocated to our partners in the Community. That is the startting point. We have 81 seats, and the argument is about their allocation between different parts of the United Kingdom. Given the much larger number of English seats, there could be a reduction of one without a grave loss to England but with considerable advantage to Wales.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I wish to refer to Amendments Nos. 17, 21 and 51. First, however I should like to take up the point by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) concerning our international obligations and the sacrosanct figure of 81.
I would stress that in pressing the demand for parity with Northern Ireland, which is in our amendment in terms of representation in the European Parliament, we are not seeking to take seats away from other parts of the United Kingdom. I want to put it quite strongly to the Government that, in view of the developments towards Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, if that is still the Government's intention, they ought seriously to renegotiate—and this is a word which is not unfamiliar to the Labour Government in the context of the European Community—their commitment to a figure of 81, in view of the impending move towards greater democracy in Wales and, perhaps, to put it in those terms, possibly even faster towards a national democracy in Scotland. So I am

not pressing acceptance on behalf of Plaid Cymru of the argument that we must take this 81 as an immutable figure. I would put it to the Minister that this is, or at least should be, a negotiable figure.
My general position on direct elections is well known inside and outside this Committee and I do not want to rehearse arguments I have put in other debates here and outside. I have been and am still totally opposed to the whole principle of direct elections. In my view they represent a drift towards pseudo-continental democracy, which means we shall create a system of false democracy that will raise false expectations and will be out of touch with the political realities that members of the European Parliament will be seeking to represent. Direct elections represent a drift towards a supranational European State to which, again, I am firmly opposed.
If, however, we are to have direct elections, then, obviously, as a political party, Plaid Cymru will participate actively, and will hope to be represented within those direct elections and as a result of them.
A crucial point for us, and the whole point of the amendment, is the basis of representation. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East has pointed out, the basic point is whether Wales is to have national representation within the Community. We have already heard some comparative figures about the numbers to be represented in various European States under the present system. I would remind the Committee of some of them. Denmark has 16 seats, which means that each European member in Denmark will represent 315,000 people. Earlier an hon. Member explained the special position of Luxembourg, each of whose members represents 60,000 people. In Ireland, one member represents 205,000. Under the present arrangement England, with 66 seats, will have one member per 514,000. Scotland is doing slightly better with one member for 470,000, and Northern Ireland is doing considerably better with one member per 344,000. These are quotations from the First Report of the Select Committee, in which the figures were given.

Mr. John: From the 1977 electoral rolls, which we have, the figures show that Scotland will have one member per


473,000, England one per 516,000 and Wales one per 514,000. That is slightly at variance with what was said by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for those figures. I have computed mine from the 1977 register, where the figure is 511,000 for Wales. It is now 514,000, a difference of about 2,000 either way.
Therefore, the position is that Wales is, within the context of this present situation, in a very unfavourable position compared with other full nation-States members of the Community, and this is an argument which, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has said, is not going to go away. It is going to be a developing argument in Wales in the next 10 years, as we have now become full members of the Community, a decision we still regret and bitterly opposed at the time, but one taken by a majority of the Welsh people; but, as we become members of the Community, the argument about what kind of members we are to be will be one of the major international arguments in Wales, linked closely as it is to the whole devolution argument and to the status of government in Wales. I will not advance that tonight.
I do not expect the Government will agree to full, nation status for Wales in terms of Community representation, but the Government should take a second look at the regional status on a head count basis, which they are now giving to Wales and Scotland. The head count concept is at variance both with what the Select Committee said, in its First Report on Direct Elections to the European Assembly, in paragraph 13, on page 72, where the Committee found
that any formulation should be such as to make it possible for the United Kingdom's allocation of seats to be large enough to provide representation for its component parts not significantly out of proportion to those of the smaller Member States (with the proviso that Luxembourg should be treated as a special case).
Thus, in the review discussions in the Select Committee there was the concept that component parts, which I take to mean component nations of a kingdom, should be represented in some degree in a

national as opposed to a regional head count. That has happened partly in the case of Northern Ireland but certainly not in the case of Wales.
In evidence to the Select Committee this point was made by Plaid Cymru and also by the Farmers' Union of Wales which, as an agricultural union, is now very actively developing a European dimension, because the common agricultural policy is still the only common policy that the Community has which functions, and affects member States and individuals and industries directly. In its representations to the Select Committee the Farmers' Union of Wales said:
In so far as Wales is concerned, its identity as a nation in its own right should be borne in mind when drawing up plans for the number of constituencies necessary.
Wales should have an allocation of seats on the same basis as other nations in the European Community. If Luxembourg is taken as an example… Wales should have 13 seats.
The point being made by the Farmers' Union of Wales—which is not a front organisation for Plaid Cymru on any basis—as an organisation practically involved in European policy making and in the effect and impact of European policy on Wales, is that it feels strongly that the identity of Wales should be recognised. In the early days, back in 1974, the report of the study group of the European Movement, of which I was then a member, on direct elections to the European Parliament dealt with the whole question of what should be the basis of European representation, and this stated:
Were European political union already achieved and were it possible to ignore separate nations of Member States it would be logical to allocate Parliamentary seats strictly according to population".
There is there a calculation of how this could be done, given an Assembly of the size of 505.
It went on:
There are a number of reasons for believing that such an outcome would be politically unacceptable. First, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the Community is not—and may never be—a unitary state, but is rather a group of national sovereign states, bound together by treaty. From this point of view, the smaller states have a strict legal equality with the larger. This fact is recognised within the Community's institutions in the composition of the Council of Ministers; and it might be argued that there is therefore no need to take it into account again in the composition of the Parliament. There are, however, limits. The present


Parliamentary seats are allocated so as to reflect, but not to reflect exactly, the relative populations of the Member States, giving a weighting in favour of the smaller members.
7.0 p.m.
I want to argue that what is a principle in respect of the existing member States which originally signed the Treaty is also a principle that we should extend to nations which, within the Community already, are achieving the force of political status. Here, we should not take too structured a view of the Community; we should not take too stratified a view of the Community as it exists. Rather, we should see the Community not just as a community of the existing nation-States which signed the Treaty, but as a flexible community, not only in its external relations in the annexation of new members, but also within itself. In other words, when part of the Community itself opts for national status, whether it is a limited status, as in the case of the Welsh Assembly proposals, or a more substantial one, as in the case of the policy of Plaid Cymru—that of having full national status for Wales—the Community should recognise that there are at Community level alternative ways of representation which should be allowed.
That means having forms of direct access from emergent national groupings to the Community itself, and not merely working through the existing apparatus of the nation-Sate. That is a very important basic principle in relation to how the Community is to develop, whether it is to be solely a conglomerate of existing nation-States, or whether it can be flexible enough to accommodate the rights of other emerging national communities.
We clearly see that the Government will not accept the increased number of seats that we and the Scottish National Party propose, but I put it to the Government that they should tell their Community partners that there must be a new look at the allocation of seats to the United Kingdom in view of the changes that are taking place here.
Looking, perhaps, to the membership of Spain, this argument will be taken much further when the emerging Governments of the Basque country and Catalonia demand access to the Community. This problem of how we get new nations within the structure of the

Community will be with us throughout the development of the Community.
Why do we believe that national representation for Wales is essential? It is because we have seen what national representation can mean for the Irish Republic. I hope that I will not be out of order in mentioning this, Mr. Murton, but I do represent 650,000 sheep. Recently, the Irish Republic Government negotiated effectively with the French Government a deal whereby Irish lamb was exported to France. Wales, as a major lamb producer, exports 15 per cent. of its lamb production to the Community; yet, because Wales is not a full member of the Community, and, therefore, unable to press, along with Ireland, for a Community sheep regime and access for Welsh lamb to Continental markets, we have been discriminated against. This is why organisations such as the Farmers' Union of Wales want direct representation in the Community at all levels so that we can press for adequate safeguards for our industries.
We shall not press this issue to a Division tonight, as the Government will, no doubt, be relieved to hear, but we reserve the right to renegotiate this figure as soon as we have a mandate from the Welsh people to do so.

Mr. Jay: I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) say that it was no good proposing any alteration in the figure of 81 seats for the United Kingdom because it had been decided already. It has not been decided already. All that has happened is that the British Government have entered into an international agreement and are recommending to the House of Commons that the agreement should be carried out. It is perfectly within the competence of the House to disagree with that recommendation. Perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me about that.

Mr. Anderson: It is within our competence to suggest 200, 300, 400 or 500 seats. My right hon. Friend may be legally correct, but I am talking about practicality. We have entered into a commitment. Any suggestion from us that our own numbers should be increased would have consequential effects on our partners. Therefore, the realistic position must be to assume that 81 is the overall


number and that we can debate the allocation within that.

Mr. Jay: So, according to my hon. Friend, it is quite legal for us to discuss the figure but not realistic and practical to do anything about it. But I propose to do something about it by recommending this amendment myself. If the Committee were not competent to discuss this proposition, I am sure that you, Mr. Murton, would not permit us to discuss it. But, as we have already discussed the matter for the last hour or so, do not let us have any suggestion that my hon. Friend can lay down rules of order and, as it were, guillotine this discussion. If anyone is going to do that, I hope that it will be you, Mr. Murton. Quite clearly, you have not done so.
The position is that the British Government have reached an agreement and referred it to the House of Commons, and the Committee is free to agree or not to agree as it pleases. If the Committee agreed to amendments which would raise the total number of United Kingdom seats from 81 to 89, the Government would simply have to go back to the Community and say "We have no authority now to reach an agreement on the basis of 81 seats. Either we reach it on the basis of 89, or for the moment no agreement can be reached." It is clear that that is the legal principle.
That being so, it is with much pleasure as well as surprise, after all the debates on the Scotland Bill, that I find myself in almost total agreement with those who have spoken today for the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. I hardly discovered any statement of theirs with which I was not in agreement, except perhaps a few sentences which included the words "nationhood" or "nation States". However, I shall not argue about that. To do so would take the debate much too wide, and no doubt we should not persuade one another.
If we look not at these rather vague general concepts but at the figures, we find that Scotland and Wales on an arithmetical basis have a genuine grievance as against Denmark, Ireland and, even more, Luxembourg. No doubt it is not necessary in a democratic society to establish an absolute arithmetical identity between the number of persons represented by each Member in different parts

of the whole area, but the present disparities between the representation of Luxembourg, Denmark and Ireland on the one hand and Scotland and Wales on the other are too extreme to be defensible.
There is another consideration. The EEC is a changing unit. We know that there are three more applicant nations—I think that we can call Greece, Spain and Portugal nations without causing too much controversy—which will be joining the Community in a few years, if not within a few months.
All the figures—81, 89, 112 or whatever—are ephemeral and provisional. They are bound to be altered when three other nations of moderate size and population join the Community. Incidentally, that fact exposes the absurdity of our rushing through the Bill as though there were a desperate hurry to reach a target date on the basis of the precise numbers that we are discussing. We know that if the Bill goes through the whole constitution and all the numbers will have to be altered shortly anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East looks as though he dissents from what I have said, but he cannot deny that there are three nations waiting to join.

Mr. Anderson: But I can deny that the accession of those three nations need have any consequential effect on the total number of our seats and how their allocation is to be determined. The allocation of seats to those nations can be made on the same basis as the allocation to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend takes a simple view of negotiations of this sort if he thinks that the problem can be solved merely by the addition of 50 seats to the size of the Assembly. It is clear that all the figures we are discussing are provisional. That being so, and as there are strong grounds for saying that Scotland and Wales will be under-represented, nationalist Members have made a strong case for serious amendment of the figures.

Mr. Powell: Like the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I find myself in unwonted and strictly temporary alliance with nationalist Members.

Mr. John: Any port in a storm.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps my alliance and its limitations may sufficiently appear as


what I have to say proceeds. There is no harm in taking note of an occasional overlap, even if it is accidental or paradoxical.
The clause and the figures in it bring out the central and intolerable contradiction in the Bill and in the purpose to which it is directed. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that it is no mere legalism to say that we are entitled in this Committee to decide upon these figures. At the commencement of our proceedings in Committee, we established that we are not bound, in the case of this Bill, by the details of the decision of 20th September 1976—indeed, the Bill was deliberately drawn by the Government so that we would not be so bound.
If the House decides that the figures, relative to one another or in total, were unsatisfactory, it is entitled to change them them as it was entitled to vote a week ago last Monday for a 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound. As on that occasion, the other Community countries would have to take account of the decision of this Committee and arrive at agreed adjustments among themselves in consequence.
Let me come straight to the inherent contradiction to which I have referred. The whole assumption underlying the proposal for the direct election of representatives is that the electorate of the European Economic Community is being treated as a whole and that the people, directly and not through the medium of their respective national Governments, are to be represented in the Assembly or the Parliament of the EEC.
7.15 p.m.
If that were not so, there would be no point in direct elections. If it were still to be representation of constituent nations, it could be left to the decision of each member State how it arrived at the composition of its delegation or representation. Any move from delegations appointed by nations to representatives individually elected by popular constituencies on a popular vote, which, if the Treaty of Rome is ever to be obeyed, will sooner or later have to be based on the same electoral principles, is a wholly different notion of what is represented in the Assembly.
The Assembly thereby becomes the representation of the total population and

the total electorate, as one, of the EEC—a potent expression of the will towards political union which lies behind the fact that Article 138 is in the Treaty of Rome.
I turn to the terminology of the decision of 20th September 1976. Article 1 reads:
The representatives in the Assembly of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community shall be elected by direct universal suffrage.
That is interesting terminology on which it is worth spending a few moments of reflection. The "representatives in the Assembly" are not representatives of the States. That concept is being left behind. They are "representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community." From the point of view of those who framed the decision, the peoples of the respective States are collectively to elect their representatives and thus produce an Assembly which bears the same relationship to the total electorate of the Community as, for example, this Assembly bears to the total electorate of the United Kingdom.
If that were so, the principle of direct, universal suffrage would have an inevitaable, clear and direct implication, namely, that there should be approximate equality in the constituencies and that the electoral quotas should be—I do not say, pednatically equal—but broadly similar throughout the Community of peoples, so that one vote should have one value. That is the only possible implication and the only logically acceptable implication of the proposal that members of the Assembly shall be directly elected by universal franchise.
However, if we look at the allocation of seats in the next article, we discover all the old skulduggery and log-rolling that has gone on among the respective member nations. The big four have 81 seats each—jacked up from an original 80 in order that one of the nations might fit in a special arrangement for a remote province of that nation.
The rest have deliberate weightings on the ground that the fact that they are nation States has to be recognised and they are not to be treated in this allocation as provinces of commensurate size in a Community—and this is where there is no shame in my agreeing with the views of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.
Those countries are treated as nations in their own right. They are given their own individual, apportioned allocation and weighting. Of course, the extreme case is Luxembourg, which would rate only a fraction of a Member in an Assembly of this size if the allocation were on the basis of population. I am reminded of the days when the proposal was eagerly canvassed that Gibraltar might be represented in the House. I remember the Gibraltarian representatives coming to a Conservative Party committee and putting forward their plea that the desire of Gibraltar to be permanently associated with the United Kingdom should be expressed by Gibraltar being represented in the United Kingdom Parliament.
I remember that I was naughty enough to intervene by saying that, as Member at that time for Wolverhampton, South-West, I supported the proposal, and that as Wolverhampton, South-West was a few thousand electors short of the average quota I would be quite willing to accept the addition of Gibraltar, thus making a single constituency of Wolverhampton, South-West and Gibraltar. That would have been the position of Luxembourg if the Community were being consistent about what it is doing, if this were to be a genuine representation of the peoples of the Community, of the single electorate which has been brought into one mass by the combination of these nation States.

Mr. John: Is it any more logical for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the implication of direct elections must mean a numerical equality—

Mr. Powell: Approximately.

Mr. John: —approximately, between the nations? Does that not fall down upon the very point that in the nations represented within this Parliament there is an inequality, which lasts, between 100,000 electors in some places and 22,000 in the Western Isles, so that even within a national Parliament there can be great disparities in representation?

Mr. Powell: Yes, and if we were to have the allocation of seats to the different provinces of the Community, to the different slabs of the Community, determined on the kind of criteria on which we justify the higher representation in this

place and the lower electoral quota of Wales and Scotland, my argument would fall to the ground. But that is not what has happened. What has happened is that we have set out from block figures which represent the claim of nations, as nations, the respective weight of these nations inside the Community. Having been given their respective quotas, they are told that their electorates can scrabble for them internally as they please. That is what we are concerned with.
Therefore, the whole structure is illogical. It is in fact transitional. It is a sign that the Community has not yet wholly outgrown the nation States but that it is deliberately moving, by the alteration in the nature of its representative Assembly, to a form and a concept which supersedes the nation States. The cause of the complaint of the national parties arises from that incompatibility between the two views of what the Community is about which is dramatically represented by the inconsistency between direct election under Article 1 and the numbers allocated under Article 2.
Therefore, in the concluding section of my remarks I proceed to consider which way the transition is going. If I thought that it was moving in the direction of representation of the nation States—to use the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the first day, as yet innocent of guillotine, of this Committee stage, the "independent and sovereign" nation States—I would not be taking the trouble to take part in any Division or any proceedings whatever which might contribute to securing the defeat of the Bill.
But manifestly that is not so. Manifestly we are going in the opposite direction. We take an Assembly, which at present is composed of those whom the respective nations and their representative bodies have sent as delegates, so to speak, to a conference, to the Assembly of the Community, and we convert it into a semi-Parliament, a simulacrum or pretence of being a directly elected Assembly representing the peoples of the Community.
There is no doubt about the direction in which we are going. We are going away from the nation States, independent and sovereign, and towards an amalgam, a single State or super-State with its


characteristic Parliament directly elected by universal suffrage. We have not got there yet. But those who approve this measure are approving that direction in which they want to go. Some hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been candid enough to admit that.
Therefore, in considering the amendments, we are taking note of the fact that the caravan of the Community is on the move. It is moving away from independent and sovereign nation States towards a single super-State with the appurtenances of a super-State. The tractive power by which it is proceeding—I see a smile on the face of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). He is wondering what sort of tractive power a caravan ought to have. Camel power, I suppose—the tractive power for this movement is precisely direct election.
Once we accept the principle of direct election as the means of composing the Assembly of the EEC, we thereby logically commit ourselves to the movement from the independent and sovereign nation State to the West European super-State. At each subsequent step—we shall be considering some of those steps later this evening, when we look at the new clause that the Government have obligingly cobbled up and so fortunately obtained a space for inside the guillotine programme—we shall be told "But, of course, this was implicit in what you did. Why were you voting for direct elections if you did not want a direct representation of the electorate?"
It will be no good for us then to recur to the proceedings on 2nd February 1978. It will be futile for us to say "Ah, yes, but you should consult Hansard. There, at about 7.30 of the clock in the evening, you will find the right hon. Member for Down, South pointing out that there was an inconsistency and a contradiction, and that while the method of election was that appropriate to a super-State, the numbers being elected were those appropriate to a collocation of the existing sovereign nations."
It will not be as easy as that. It will be the principle of direct election, which is all that the Bill is really about, which will take us on from stage to stage until we arrive at the destination towards which the Bill is pointing and at which perhaps not many people in the House of Com

mons or the country consciously intend to arrive. But, then, they have not, most of them, consciously wanted to get where we are at present. They have not consciously thought that in 1977–78 they would have a Bill for direct elections. Only two or three years ago they were told that that was in the remote future.
There is a great deal connected with the Common Market which has suddenly come, like a zooming camera, from the remote and theoretical future into a close-up. We had better take precautions while we still can—that is, while this Bill, guillotine or no guillotine, is still within our control. We had better be stirred to do so by the considerations put before us by the representatives of the national parties and the tell-tale contradiction and absurdity in the conflict between the method of election and the irrelevant numbers which are to be elected.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: You have this week, and now tonight, Mr. Murton, had to listen to the whole question of the Scottish relationship both with this Parliament and with the Parliament in the EEC. I dare say that by now you are something of an expert on Scotland's rights and justifications. I believe it unhappily to be the case that you are not to return to the House of Commons after the next election. If that is so, I have no doubt that a great deal of consultancy work will be available to you in explaining to people the exact nature of the problem and the exact nature of the problem and the arguments which are deployed.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who is, as he said, in an unusual position of agreement with those of us on the Scottish National Party Bench on this issue, made a crucial and fundamental point about the clause. If it were true that we were talking of a one-Europe situation, where national boundaries had no meaning, no purpose and no significance in any political sense, it would indeed be quite easy to have seats such as South-West Pyrenees, North-West this, and so on—seats which had no relevance to the national communities in which they were placed but which followed some rationale of electoral control and electoral procedure laid down in a fair and objective way from the


centre, so that everyone within the Community had a vote of equal strength and significance. But that is not so.
I do not take the right hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view in this matter. I still believe that the underlying forces within Europe are essentially those who believe in, if they accept it at all, a Europe des patries, and that the concept of the nation is still the most crucial concept, even within the EEC as we see it today. For that reason, there is no rationale, no democratice rationale in the pure sense, underlying the allocation of seats. There is, as always, a settlement and negotiation of national interest between the different countries concerned in order to find a formula.
It was rather dense and insensitive of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to keep harping on about the question of Luxembourg, which is of little relevance to what we are discussing in relation to Scottish and Welsh representation. When we look at the question from Scotland or Wales, it is natural for us to consider it in relation to countries of similar size. It cannot be disputed that the country of similar size to Scotland in the Community is Denmark.
We ask ourselves why Denmark has 16 seats and Scotland eight. I hope that it is not the Government's view, or that they will repudiate it if it is, that it is because of a qualitative assessment of the better educational standards or moral character of the Danes as compared with the Scots. The real reason is that Scotland is being considered in this matter not as a nation but as a province of another country.
I put the point with greater force than my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) did earlier, when he referred to Scotland's distinctive system of law. There is no other State within the Community with two distinctive systems of law. If we consider the concept of the State as a judicial branch, an executive branch and a legislative branch, we can stay that with one-third of those branches at least—the judicial branch—Scotland is part way to being a State. As we are to have executive and legislative branches, we are well on the way to being a State in those terms as well.
Scotland's special position in the Community because of our separate legal sys

tem is recognised. There is a Scottish judge on the European Court. It is appropriate that he should be there, because he is accustomed to European concepts of law, by which I mean the civilised concepts of law. Our identity is already taken for granted in that situation.
The object of the amendment is that the number of United Kingdom seats should be increased from 81 to 89 in order that Scotland may be given parity with Denmark. The Minister will no doubt reply that, as we heard from his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, of courses that cannot be, because Scotland does not have the legal persona to justify 16 seats. But even if we cannot have the United Kingdom representation increased to 89, the way in which the United Kingdom treats Scotland in this place and on the number of seats in the European Parliament will be noted by the people of Scotland.
There are right hon. and hon. Members who brag to us about the advantages of union, who tell us what a wonderful thing it is that we are part of the union here. The Government must reflect that one of the prices of that union is that Scotland should be given bigger representation, nearer the Danish model, than eight seats. If the union is of overall importance to right hon. and hon. Members, they should consider the sacrifice that they may have to make in giving up their seats to bring Scotland up to parity with those countries with which it can rightly be compared.
The Minister may well argue that we are not a separate State. But if we are not treated in the light of our existence as a nation, that will tell in Scotland. If the rest of the nations in this kingdom are not prepared to move to recognise us as a nation, in the number of seats given in the European Parliament, more and more people in Scotland will say "The sooner we get independence and have our separate representation, the better".

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Not so long ago, as a member of the European Parliament delegation from the United Kingdom, I found that the much advertised slogan for the year, and a very good slogan, was "A future for our past". That was because it was European Architectural Heritage Year. That slogan perhaps has a message for us in this debate


because, whatever we think of the European Community, whether we were for or against entering, it is nothing if it does not recognise all the cultures of all the peoples of Europe, which is one of the bastions of democracy in a world where all too often democracy is not very noticeable.
We in Scotland have a distinctive culture. Much has been said about the law, and as a lawyer I shall not go over that ground. We believe that we have made a contribution to mankind out of all proportion to our size. In Scottish schools we were always told of all the things we had invented or discovered. It was an Englishman, Dr. Johnson, who paid tribute to us when he said that we had made an enormous contribution, out of all proportion to our size, to the thought of mankind. He was not always very kind to the Scots, but he was kind on that one. I suppose that he was kind because he was merely speaking in accordance with the facts.
The European Parliament is not a Parliament of confrontation where we sit at two swords' length, but a hemicycle. It is flexible in many ways. It is 20 years old and, rightly or wrongly, it is seeking more powers. It may get them. At present it has rather strange and limited powers. It can dismiss the whole Commission and dismiss the whole budget, but these powers are never used. In effect, it might as well have no powers, but it is seeking more powers. It is not a Parliament of confrontation, and in a certain sense it is not a Parliament at all, but my party's interests and rights are given a remarkably fair hearing.
I was interested when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the European Parliament is moving against the independent sovereign State. Personally, I am against economic and monetary union. I should deplore that. I do not see any way of preserving the cultures within Europe if we are to move to such a union.

Mr. Powell: Quite right.

Mrs. Ewing: We are in agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the danger of moving away from the independent sovereign State. However, last Wednesday the House of Commons denied the right of a people—that is the

word that has been used—ever to become a sovereign State, ever to have the right to which the United Nations Charter commits the United Kingdom to recognising—namely, self-determination. That was what the House of Commons did last Wednesday.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Not at all.

Mrs. Ewing: It changed the rules to make it almost impossible to achieve self-determination. The rules were rigged. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was Prime Minister when I first entered the House, said "One will do." The right hon. Gentleman was saying that a majority of one would do—namely, one of the votes cast. I have taken the trouble to read the debates, and that is how Cyprus, Nigeria and other States achieved their self-determination. However, last Wednesday the House of Commons decided that one of the votes cast is not sufficient to enable the people of Scotland to realise their aspiration. It has been decided that 40 per cent. of the total electorate in Scotland will have to vote in favour. Even the dead are to be included.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South about the danger of moving away from an independent sovereign State. If the right hon. Gentleman is criticising the European Parliament for its lack of recognition of cultures, it must be said that there is more recognition of the culture and individual contribution of Scotland in that forum than in the House of Commons. I am sorry to have to say that.

Mr. Heffer: Rubbish!

Mrs. Ewing: In 1968 my party visited the Commission as an interested body to observe and to ask questions. The members of my party were fortunate to meet a Commissioner. We met senior civil servants engaged in all the various subjects in which we were interested. After a rather unsuccessful meeting, from their point of view, when we were not convinced that it was a good set-up to join, a senior civil servant said "You have to have faith". We asked, "How can we have faith in a body that does not know anything about us and does not even visit Scotland? It is a body that is to make


decisions that will affect Scotland without having any understanding of the problems."
It was put to us, "Have you never thought that in this set of institutions there is a glorious new role for Scotland?" The head of the civil service at the time said "Scotland can be the leader of the downtrodden regions of Europe." He was surprised when my delegation burst into laughter. He could not understand what he had said wrong. He thought that he was paying us a compliment. We do not regard that sort of comment as a compliment. We are not a region. We are downtrodden but we are not a region. That is where we have to part company.
7.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that the hub of the matter is nationhood, but he said that he would not go into that. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke of the claim of Wales to be a nation. I hope that he is not a Welshman. If he is, it is a strange thing to have said. However, that is what he is on record as saying. If I were a Welshman, I would rather not be that sort of Welshman.
The hub of the amendment is nationhood. We have had many definitions of a nation, and I shall not repeat the points that have been well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid).
There is no point in the House of Commons pretending that Scotland is the same as Yorkshire. That will not do. The "Yorkshire" argument is surely buried for ever. It should be stone cold dead in the market place. If it told the fans going to Argentina that they were not members of a nation, the Committee would get an answer that it might not like. The answer might not be in parliamentary language. Tell them that they are not members of a nation, and they will soon say that they are a nation and that they come from all the various "Yorkshires" of Scotland, from the regions of Scotland, which is an interesting and varied nation with all manner of places within it, all with their own cultures. It is a nation that has had a com

mon cause for longer than any nation in Western Europe.
It was in the Dark Ages that culture was saved by the Celtic West, by Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It was only in the West, in the Celtic nations, that culture survived during the Dark Ages. However, Members from Scotland have to come to the House of Commons to be in some ways constantly insulted by hearing it argued that it is not a fact that Scotland is a nation.
There are not many who are brave enough to say that now, but when I first came to this place it was said daily. In fact, "England" was used as well as "Britain". It was used as if it were the same thing. When I discovered that hon. Members went to Hansard and changed that reference, or that Hansard changed it for them, I had to go to Hansard to say "The hon. Gentleman said 'England'. If he said 'England', it should go in the record as that. That is what he thinks it is, so that is what should go in the record." That is how the nation of Scotland has been treated in the House of Commons, as has the nation of Wales.
As I have said, the European Parliament is about 20 years old. I campaigned vehemently against entering the Common Market. I did so on platforms throughout Scotland and in England. However, rightly or wrongly, the vote in Scotland in favour was 57 per cent. That was the percentage of the votes cast to make an extraordinary constitutional change. That percentage of the votes cast was sufficient. That brings us back to last Wednesday's vote. We had 57 per cent. in favour and, as we are democrats, unlike those who voted against the aspiration of the people of Scotland last Wednesday, we have accepted the fact that we are at present in the Common Market. The European Parliament is a forum where eight Members will not suffice to represent the interests of the distinctive culture of Scotland.
Ireland and Denmark are two of the smaller member States. How do they fare? They have a larger representation than Scotland is proposed to have. I shall not go over the numbers argument but instead will give a practical example. The Irish have had a good deal for their beef. That is fairly satisfactory. The Welsh have obtained a satisfactory deal


for their sheepmeat. They had a good deal in respect of the green pound. What about the Danes? The Fisheries Commissioner is a Dane. The Danes are the pirates of the North Sea. They are despoiling one of the largest sources of protein in the world. They are the baddies of fishermen, yet they are getting a good deal for their fishermen. But the Scottish fishermen, whose grounds are part of the largest fishpond in the world, are getting a rotten deal. These are the facts. In the light of the facts, I suggest that Scotland must get a proper deal.
Why is eight immutable? It is silly to suggest that it is. There is no reason for that to be so. Why cannot Britain say "In our case 81 will not do. We have a rather special State comprised of several nations, and that entitles us to greater representation"? If that means that the Germans will say that Bavaria has a special position, that the French will say that the Bretons have a special position or that the Italians will say that the Sicilians have a special position, that matter should be considered. But if it means that Spain, if it enters the Common Market, has to say that the Catalans and the Basques have a special position, that means a bigger rather than a smaller Parliament.
Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) showed that the allocation of seats inside the Community is a compromise between two concepts of Europe. But it is characteristic of him that, the moment he detects a compromise, he denounces it. I think that it is an ingenious compromise that reflects accurately the balance of power and thought within the Community between the nation States and the aspiration of European unity.
The arguments in support of the amendments regarding the distribution of seats inside the Community are logical coming from the nationalists. If one believes that Scotland and Wales are, in essence, independent States and that legal recognition should follow, it is logical to go into the argument about Denmark and Luxembourg.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) wants to destroy the Bill, so he has fun and expresses a certain

logic of his own. For the nationalists this is a logical argument, but for anyone who believes that Scotland, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom, comparisons with Denmark and Luxembourg fall. They have no validity of any kind. Therefore, this is strictly a nationalist argument. It is an argument that appeals to those who believe that Scotland and Wales should be independent countries, but it will not have any logical appeal to anyone else, including, I suspect, the majority of those who live in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if accepted, the amendment will increase the representation of the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: That is precisely why I use the word "destructive" or "wrecking" to describe the amendment, because that would be its impact if it were carried.
The Select Committee discussed this matter in great detail. It is no easy matter to distribute 81 seats. The Select Committee decided that the right approach was the mathematical approach. It rounded the figures in such a way that Scotland markedly, Northern Ireland markedly and Wales only slightly are in a better position than England in the relationship between electors and the number of representatives.

Mr. Anderson: The figure was rounded down for Wales.

Mr. Hurd: According to the latest figures, as the Minister confirmed, Wales is in a slightly more favourable position than England. We have not detected that more favourable position for Wales from some of the speeches to which we have listened. The Select Committee's proposals and the Government's proposals based on the Select Committee's report put all three—Wales, I agree, only by a hair's breadth—in a more favourable position than other component parts of the United Kingdom. That position should be recognised, but it has not been mentioned or recognised so far.
For those reasons, although this is a tortuous and difficult subject, the Conservative Opposition believe that the Select Committee's recommendations are on balance the best way through this labyrinth. We think that the Government were right, on the whole, to accept


those recommendations and to incorporate them in this part of the Bill. Therefore we have no sympathy with the amendments.

Mr. John: There are three groups of amendments which have in common a change in the number of seats and their distribution. But, that said, there is no agreement between them. There is no agreement on how many seats are wanted for the United Kingdom or on how they should be distributed.
I am sorry that the sponsors of the Scottish National Party's amendment and of Plaid Cymru's amendment are not in their places.

Mr. Reid: I am.

Mr. John: I am sorry. But certainly the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) is not present.
The purpose of argument is to obtain a response, in however short a time is left, to the debate.
The Scottish National Party has rightly said that it has taken the Denmark formula as the basis of comparison for representation. It is not, as I indicated earlier, and as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said, that one Scottish Member represents 600,000 people. I have already dealt with the numbers, but I propose to repeat them for the benefit of those who were not present or who wish to take a note of them.
In Northern Ireland, one seat is elected by 344,000 electors. In Scotland, one seat is elected by 473,000 electors. In Wales, one seat is elected by 514,000 electors. In England, one seat is elected by 516,000 electors.
If we take the Denmark benchmark, we are talking about it not merely for Scotland, but for the whole Community, to be logical and fair. But the amendment does not do that. The upshot of such an amendment, extended throughout the Community, would mean an Assembly of 850 seats.
Plaid Cymru's amendment would give 10 more seats—I see that the hon. Member for Merioneth has now resumed his place—back to the United Kingdom, but would allocate the whole of them to

Wales to give 14 seats compared with the four in the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that, in law, we could tell the Community that, as a result of the debate, it would have to renegotiate.
There is no agreement between the amendments as to the basis on which that should be done. Therefore, we cannot logically accept either of the amendments. It is odd that these two great allies—the SNP and Plaid Cymru—cannot agree to look after each other's interests in mutual amendments.
The Irish Republic mark, which is the basis of Plaid Cymru's amendment, would create an Assembly, if translated throughout the Community, of more than 1,300 seats. We must consider whether we want 1,300 representatives going to the Assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked "Why be satisfied with that? Why not have one Member to every 34,000 electors, as in Luxembourg?". In that event we would have an Assembly of about 5,700 members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I did not expect that to get quite the approbation that it did. That shows the inherent impossibility of the creations that the nationalists want.
I accept Wales and Scotland as nations. However, I do not accept them as nation States. People can form nations without those nations being nation States. The confusion in this matter has led to a lot of argument with the nationalists over their misconceptions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East asked, why not have one more seat for Wales? He said that it would mean taking only one more seat for England. But, as has been said, one and half seats have already been taken from England on a strictly numerical proportion to round up in Scotland and Northern Ireland to take account of their special responsibilties. I am an unlikely defender of English nationalism, but I should be unwilling to take from England and further to destroy the basis of justice to make special provision in this instance.
The basis arrived at by the Select Committee may not be pretty or logically symmetrical, but it has the effect of wreaking substantial justice between


different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not believe in perpetrating injustice by elevating a part of the country in which I happen to live at the expense of others. I believe that we should try to bring about substantial justice.
Therefore, I believe that the clause as drafted represents the best that can be achieved, and, therefore, I cannot advise the Committee to accept these proposals. I cannot accept the logic of the argument which has been made that if we throw out these provisions we shall have to

renegotiate. There is no basis in the three amendments on which we could renegotiate, and there is no common—

It being Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [26th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 47, Noes 132.

Division No. 94]
AYES
[[...].0 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald
Henderson, Douglas
Reid, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo


Body, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Budgen, Nick
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Skinner, Dennis


Carson, John
Lee, John
Spearing, Nigel


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
McCusker, H.
Stoddart, David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crowther Stan (Rotherham)
Marten, Neil
Thompson, George


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Maynard, Mist Joan
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moate, Roger
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Evans, John (Newton)
Molloy, William



Flannery, Martin
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Ovenden, John
Mrs. Winifred Ewing and


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. D. E. Thomas




NOES


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Nott, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Graham, Ted
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Perry, Ernest


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter
Price, William (Rugby)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Radice, Giles


Boyden, James (Bish Auc[...])
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rathbone, Tim


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Horam, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carter, Ray
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roper, John


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kennen (Rushcliffe)
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sever, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kimball, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Crouch, David
Lamborn, Harry
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stanley, John


Doig, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dykes, Hugh
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Eyre, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


FooKes, Miss Janet
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forman, Nigel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ward, Michael


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David




Watkinson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitehead, Phillip
Woodall, Alec
Mr. James Hamilton and


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 47.

Division No. 951
AYES
[8.11 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Perry, Ernest


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Radice, Giles


Awdry, Daniel
Hardy, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bidwell, Sydney
Horam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roper, John


Boardman, H.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hunter, Adam
Sandelson, Neville


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hurd, Douglas
Sever, John


Brooke, Peter
John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Carter, Ray
Judd, Frank
Snape, Peter


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Chalker Mrs Lynoa
Kellott-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamont, Norman
Stanley, John


Coleman, Donald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stradling Thomas, J.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Surmmerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Doig, Peter
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
Macfarlane, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Dykes, Hugh
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tinn, James


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Watkins, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkinson, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitehead, Phillip


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Forman, Nigel
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Freud, Clement
Nott, John



Glyn, Dr Alan
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr Ted Graham and Mr Alf Bates


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John





NOES


Atkinson, Norman
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Bell, Ronald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Body, Richard
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Buchan, Norman
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Budgen, Nick
Lee, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Carson, John
McCusker, H.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Madden, Max
Thompson, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Marten, Neil
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mikardo, Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Evans, John (Newton)
Molyneaux, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Ovenden, John
Woof, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Paisley, Rev Ian



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, George
Mr John Ellis and Mr Roger Moate


Henderson, Douglas
Richardson, Miss Jo

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 8

PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL OF TREATIES INCREASING ASSEMBLY'S POWERS

'.—(1) No treaty which provides for any increase in the powers of the Assembly shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament.

(2) In this section "treaty" includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement'.—[Dr. Owen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following:

Amendment (a) to the new clause, at end add—
'(2) For the avoidance of doubts, the interpretation of the provisions of this Clause shall rest exclusively with the Courts of the United Kingdom, from whom no appeal shall lie on any matter relating thereto whatsoever to the Court of the Community or Courts outside the United Kingdom.'

New Clause 1—Variations in powers, &amp;c., of Assembly—
'Notwithstanding any provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 this Act shall cease to have effect if any variation or increase in the powers, rules or practices of the Assembly or any change in the constitution, rules or practices of the European Communities whether proposed or carried through under the terms and provisions of the Treaties of Paris and Rome or by any persons or organisations acting through or under these provisions or otherwise does not receive the express approval of Parliament prior to their passing or taking effect.'

Amendment (a) to New Clause 1, after 'Parliament', insert:
'voting by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Members present and voting'.

Dr. Owen: I introduce the new clause in fulfilment of the undertaking that I gave to the Committee during the debate on Clause 1 on 1st December that at a later stage of the Bill's consideration the Government would introduce a new clause relating to parliamentary approval of treaties increasing the powers of the European Assembly, and that in drafting the clause the Government would take into account the views expressed by the Committee during the debate.
That debate, and the earlier debate on Second Reading on 24th November, revealed the continuing anxiety of many hon. Members that direct elections mean movement towards federalism inside the Community, and that it might be followed by other moves whereby the powers of the House of Commons would be eroded through the extension of those of the European Assembly without there being adequate consideration of the issues in Parliament and without Parliament having the full opportunity of examining any such change.
The Government's attitude to federalism and the powers of the European Assembly was made clear in the letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the general secretary of the Labour Party on 30th September last year, from which I quoted during our earlier debate. The Prime Minister stated that the Government had never accepted that the Community should develop into federation. They were determined to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments. The Prime Minister also declared the Government's intent that future change in the powers of the European Assembly should be approved by Act of Parliament rather than by affirmative order.
I pay tribute to the fact that during the debate on Second Reading on 24th November the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) confirmed on behalf of the Opposition that it was unthinkable that any increase in the powers of the European Assembly at the expense of national Governments or Parliaments could be approved except by Act of Parliament.
It is worth looking at the existing powers of the Assembly—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his undertaking to table a new clause to cover the question of any extension of the powers of the European Parliament at the expense of the legislative powers of this Parliament. Why is it that the new clause has gone far beyond that undertaking and covers any increase in the powers of the European Parliament, even if that increase in no way impinges upon the powers of this place? Does that mean that any increase in the powers of the European Parliament, however trivial


—and even if it in no way conflicts with or takes away from any powers of the House—will involve the production of a fresh Act of Parliament so that this country may ratify it?

Dr. Owen: It means that no treaty providing for an increase in the powers of the Assembly shall be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. The relevant words in the new clause are that
'treaty' includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement".
I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether this infringes the legislative power of the House of Commons. It is extremely difficult to draw the line or to have a clear-cut line. Unless we had drafted the clause in this way, making it clear that it applies to treaties in the broader sense, we should have had endless arguments whether the legislative power of the House of Commons had been infringed, in the sense that the House gives power to Ministers to make decisions on its behalf. I think it would be argued back that that is, in effect, an erosion of the powers of the House if we exclude from its ambit the discretionary power that the House vests in Ministers.
Effectively, Ministers are answerable to the House of Commons, and by making the new clause wider I think it is more in keeping with the debate which took place in the House. The Government promised that they would listen to the debate. I do not think that the new clause infringes the development of the institutions of the Community in a way which does not involve an actual increase of powers. I think it is a clear definition.
If I may go on to explain—

Mr. Marten: Would the definition include a proposed regulation? If it has taken the right hon. Gentleman's Department seven or eight weeks to draft the new clause and bring it forward, what is his comment on the fact that we have only three and a half hours in which to discuss it?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this whole issue has been discussed very extensively. A large number of points will no doubt be made in the debate, and there will be ample time for points to be answered. I must

say that I was hoping for the acclamation of hon. Members and a general feeling that we had listened to all the points and taken account of them.
8.30 p.m.
I should like to describe the powers of the European Assembly. They are very circumscribed. The functions of the Assembly are to deliver opinions to the Council of Ministers on proposed Community legislation, to hammer out the Community budget with the Council, and to exert some scrutiny over the Commission. It is a legal requirement for most Council legislation that the Assembly be consulted, and in practice it is consulted on many matters not expressly stipulated in the treaties. The consultation takes place when the Commission submits draft proposals for legislation to the Council. The Council requests an opinion from the Assembly and may take it into account. The Council is, however, under no obligation to do so.
In the budgetary area, an important new relationship between the institutions was established by the Treaty of 1970 which gave the Assembly the power formally to adopt the annual budget. Since then, the Council and Assembly together have constituted the "budgetary authority" of the Communities. The treaty of 22nd July 1975 made some minor adjustments to procedure in the light of experience of the new system, but that treaty caused considerable controversy in the House.
An intricate dialogue between the Council and Assembly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) characterised on one occasion as a "ping pong match", now takes place before the budget is finalised. On items of "obligatory expenditure" which account for some 70 per cent. of the budget and are largely connected with the CAP, the Assembly can propose modifications but the Council can overrule these modifications.
On items of non-obligatory expenditure, the Assembly has a freer hand in that, provided it does not exceed an independently determined maximum ceiling, it can make its amendments stick. The Assembly can also reject the budget in its entirety, but the force of this weapon is blunted by the fact that the treaty provides that expenditure can continue in


this event at the previous year's level, and also by the fact that the Council can still authorise certain increases in such a situation. This means that rejection of the budget would not bring the Community to a shuddering halt but merely cut the level of expenditure. It is the Assembly which is the main source of pressure inside the Community for increased expenditure on new programmes so that holding back expenditure would be a weak and ineffective means of pressure on the Council.
Finally, it is important to realise that the simple insertion of new provisions in the budget by the Assembly does not necessarily mean the Commission can go ahead and spend that money in the year in question. In some cases of continuing programmes, there are not the practical opportunities for dispensing additional funds beyond what the Council and Commission have originally planned, and in other cases again, the Commission has made clear that it would not see inscription in the budget as giving sufficient legal authority for expenditure and would want to wait for a policy decision by the Council.
I think that that has put in proportion some of the so-called powers of the Assembly over budgetary matters. They are not so great as some people have thought.
The other function of the Assembly is to exercise scrutiny over the activities of the Commission.

Mr. Spearing: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the budgetary matters, although I agree that what he said was correct, will not he also agree that the Assembly can increase the non-obligatory expenditure within the limit which is allowed and that it can do it year after year—indeed, it has done so in respect of the Regional Fund? The threat of going beyond that figure and putting the twelfths mechanism into effect is a sanction, since the Council of Ministers just before Christmas allowed the Regional Fund to be increased against its original decision.

Dr. Owen: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend's description. It is a difficult balance. The Council could resist this and hold up the Community budget, but there would be a form of crisis in the Community.
That is the existing position. We are talking mainly about the new powers, and the anxiety about the budgetary aspects which has been raised.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked about regulations. A regulation is not a treaty. But the Assembly cannot pass a regulation. The powers of the Assembly cannot be increased except by a treaty. They cannot be altered by a regulation. We come back, therefore, to the provision which refers to any changes in the treaties. That is a fairly wide coverage.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman a second time. I do so on the question of the budgetary powers and the treaty of 22nd July 1975. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the treaty which changed the budgetary powers was not ratified by the Parliaments of all member States until March 1977 but that it came into practice in 1976. This clause seems only to affect the ratification of treaties by the British Parliament. What will be the position if the same practice is followed as was followed before where the Community and the European Parliament adopt a treaty before it has been ratified? Will the Act which this Parliament passes have been a completely academic exercise in that it decides whether we ratify the treaty after the treaty has been ratified? This is not an academic argument. It is what happened in the case of the treaty affecting the budgetary powers.

Dr. Owen: I am no lawyer. As I understand it, it is subject to ratification. It is within the power of the Parliament, and if it did not ratify it presumably it would be null and void if the Parliament acted prior to ratification. The particular treaty we are discussing did not go through all its stages. There was no Bill promoted, and this was a source of criticism in the House at the time. The clause is designed to catch the 1975 situation and meet the feelings expressed at that time.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The Foreign Secretary has explained fairly and clearly how this would work in the European Parliament's powers over expenditure and the difference between obligatory and non-obligatory expenditure.


Would he crystallise what he said earlier? If the non-obligatory increase is maximised, as has been hinted at by one hon. Member, to cover the additional expenditure independently arrived at, would that be something that would not come back to the House of Commons for a decision? Is it true, on the other hand, that anything by way of obligatory expenditure would need to come back to each national Parliament for some kind of ratification?

Dr. Owen: I understand that the Commission can put a limit on the extent to which non-obligatory expenditure can be increased. I stand by the fact that the powers of the Assembly cannot be increased except by treaty. They cannot be changed simply by a regulation in Council. I think that this is covered.
The other function of the Assembly is to exercise scrutiny over the activities of the Commission, and it has the ultimate power to sack the Commission as long as there is a two-thirds majority. That power has never been exercised. Some people say that it is not a realistic possibility, but I do not wholly agree. I think that one of these days the Assembly might use this power, if only to demonstrate that it has it. However, the Assembly has no power to appoint successors to the Commission. Therefore, having sacked the Commissioners, it cannot appoint successors, and problems would arise. I accept that the Assembly probably would pull back from the brink. The power of appointment to the Commission lies solely with member States. The Assembly has no power to sack individual Commissioners, but the Assembly's right to oversee the Commission's activities is established.
As an advocate of direct elections, I believe that in this function of overseeing the activities of the Commission the Assembly will have the greatest impact. I hope that the Assembly will be able to influence the Commission to present more proposals to the Council which it feels have the political support of member States. The sheer pressure of work in the House of Commons makes it impossible to have that sort of detailed day-to-day questioning of Ministers about what is happening in Brussels, and, therefore, direct scrutiny of the Commission by the

Assembly is a useful addition. I have always seen this as an additional power of scrutiny for the House. It is not a replacement power. There is a danger in people exaggerating the consequence and effect of having direct elections on the growth and development of Europe.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Would the Foreign Secretary comment further on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? If the Commission seeks to implement proposals which have not been ratified by national Parliaments, would it be within the power of a British citizen during the period before ratification to go to the European Court to declare those measures illegal unless and until ratified?

Dr. Owen: I confess that I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that treaty-altering powers must, under the Treaty of Rome, be ratified by all member States in accordance with national constitutional requirements. The treaty may be provisionally put into force but it would not be legally binding. If it is put into provisional force, I imagine that it would be possible to go to court and claim that it is not legally binding if ratification has not occurred. Some lawyers will have a greater wisdom than I and we can clear up the matter later. Most non-lawyers will now understand the situation perfectly.
How can the Assembly's powers be ex tended? If these are the Assembly's existing powers, what are the procedures for their extension? An extension will require an amendment to the basic European Community Treaties. Under Article 236 these amending treaties can enter into force only after ratification by all member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In most Community countries ratification in accordance with national constitutional requirements requires explicit prior assent by national legislatures by the equivalent of either a statute or resolution.
In Britain confusion often arises because the outward form of our constitutional procedures disguises the underlying reality of parliamentary control. The prerogative to negotiate and ratify treaties belongs to the Crown and has not hitherto been fettered by statute. But in Britain


—unlike countries such as France and the USA which have written constitutions—treaties do not by virtue of ratification override conflicting domestic law. If they contain provisions which can be implemented only by changes in domestic law, then the Crown must seek passage of implementing legislation by Parliament, which it invariably does before ratifying. Treaties are laid before Parliament for 21 days under the so-called Ponsonby Rule before they are ratified, and if Parliament were to express objection during this time the Crown would not proceed to ratification.

Mr. Dykes: These issues are important. From the Foreign Secretary's bizarre scenario I believe that he is speaking as a non-lawyer and giving us information which most of us appreciate. The conclusion that one must draw is that if the Council of Ministers decided that it would take direct control over 2 per cent. of the public expenditure of all the national Governments and at the same time decided that Parliament should have an additional direct control of 10 per cent. of the Regional Fund, the first decision by the Council would be dealt with here, late at night or upstairs, whereas the second decision would require a fully fledged Act of Parliament. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the difference between these two decisions?

Dr. Owen: I may be a simpleton, but I am baffled. I shall see that an answer is given. I am certain that it is important. Before hazarding into this area of theoretical possibilities, which may turn out to be practical possibilities, I owe hon. Members the best legal advice. It would not be right for me to give it off the cuff. It is a point of substance and should be dealt with accordingly.
The reality of parliamentary control therefore already exists beneath the Royal Prerogative. Its lack of visibility is, however, a definite drawback in an area of policy which arouses such legitimate and passionate concern as extensions to the powers of the Assembly which might conceivably be to the detriment of this Parliament. The Government have, therefore, decided that in this sensitive area it is necessary and right to modify our constitutional procedures. We propose in this clause that there should now

be a statutory fetter on the Royal Prerogative to negotiate and ratify treaties.
8.45 p.m.
The clause will prohibit ratification of any treaty extending the powers of the European Assembly without prior approval of an Act of Parliament. This is a major constitutional innovation, although there is a constitutional convention whereby treaties involving cession of British territories are submitted for the approval of Parliament by Act of Parliament before they are ratified—for example, the treaty under which Heligoland was ceded to Germany in 1890 in exchange for Zanzibar. So that is the way in which the House demonstrates its ability to take unto itself new powers provided in the clause.
The membership of the European Community has changed the nature of international obligations. European Community decisions affect domestic affairs in this country in a quite unparalleled way, and when the original debates covering our entry into the Community took place in the House there was the feeling that this effect had not been taken sufficiently into account. A good deal of anxiety over the legislation was expressed by hon. Members on both sides at that time. I hope it will now he felt by those people—I openly claim that I was one of them—that the arguments they used then will now be seen to have had some effect.
I come to the scope of the clause. It bites only on treaties. Institutions of the Community have to keep within the powers allocated to them by the texts of the various treaties. The Assembly is not arbiter of its own powers. It can gain power only at the expense of other institutions by virtue of new treaties amending basic Community treaties. The new clause will ensure that such treaties are approved by the House, by Act of Parliament, before ratification.

Mr. John Roper: My right hon. Friend said that the clause refers only to treaties, but subsection (2) refers to "any international agreement", and that seems to be too widely drawn. Does that definition include a decision between the Council and the European Parliament? Would that be an international agreement?

Dr. Owen: My understanding is that it is not. The clause explains what is covered by a treaty. It reads:
In this section 'treaty' includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement".
I hope that hon. Members will note that in the formulation of the new clause we have taken account of the points made during the debate on 1st December. The clause is simple, although it has been criticised as being too sweeping. It avoids subjective value judgments of what might encroach on the legislative power of the House. By taking this simple measure we have been able to eschew simple value judgments of this sort.
The new clause covers unequivocally legislative, budgetary and fiscal powers. The Government believe that it fully meets the concerns expressed in the Committee and that it deserves the Committee's support. The Minister of State will be dealing with some of the specific points, and in particular the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) when he replies to the debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for not having the facility to answer him off the cuff.

Mr. Jay: It seems that my right hon. Friend's whole argument rests on the definition of an international agreement. When he says that he will leave that to a later speech we are left completely in the air. May we have some more enlightenment straight away as to what is and what is not an international agreement for the purposes of the clause?

Dr. Owen: I believe that my right hon. Friend, who knows more about these matters than I, because he studies them assiduously, will recognise that the wording, meaning and cover of the clause are specific, legal and definite and cover the areas I have described.

Mr. David Howell: While the Foreign Secretary says that the new clause is in accordance with undertakings which he gave in the debate on 1st December last year, I am afraid that if he expects that fact to recommend it to the House of Commons he does not fully appreciate the sober character of the Committee when faced with new propositions. I hope he will forgive me for saying that

there were times in his initial presentation of the clause when he seemed not to be completely in depth and on top of the finer details of the subject. I believe that we shall wish to put a good many questions—I suspect, from both sides of the Committee—which we hope that the Minister of State will be able to answer in winding up. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated several times in several adjectives he used, what has finally emerged in the new clause goes further than perhaps some had expected. It goes further than he himself indicated on 1st December when he talked of no extension that would encroach on the legislative powers of the House of Commons.
We have now moved on to treaties which concern themselves with any increase in the powers of the Assembly and the questions of ratification by the House. The clause goes further—I make no complaint about it—than some of the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) when he used the phrase "at the expense of national Parliaments" Therefore, from both those starting points the clause that now emerges goes further. I make no complaint, but I would like to be satisfied that what we now have before us does the job that is intended and meets some of the problems raised in interventions during the speech of the Foreign Secretary and also some of the doubts which have been raised which I would like now to air.
The first queston is a fairly obvious one. If in future we are going through the full process of legislation in the House by a Bill becoming an Act with treaties or amendments to a treaty which themselves will be treaties, that obviously is very different from merely saying "Yes" or "No", approving or not, or approving after a one and a half hour's debate on the affirmative resolution procedure. It is completely different. The most obvious difference is that, whereas an order cannot be amended, an Act can and may be amended. If we are to go through the full procedures of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, Third Reading, Lords amendments and so on, it is perfectly possible that parts of an Act may be amended and parts may be unamended.
I would like first to know what happens if parts of a Bill are amended by the


House but the bulk of it is approved and goes through. Does that then give licence, or does it permit the Government, to ratify the treaty? Does it then conform with the constitutional requirements under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome? Will it have conformed with the spirit of the new clause, and is there, perhaps, a necessity, if we are to make the clause work, for putting in additional words which would enable the Government to ratify a treaty even if not all the initial clauses that were put forward by the Government of the day to satisfy the treaty were then carried by the House?
If there were some quite minor amendments, or if a particular clause fell, can we be sure the Government would not be in a frozen posture, unable to ratify the treaty? We would like to know how that problem is to be handled, because, it could, of course, arise.
Secondly, there is the question of the meaning of the word "treaty" raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). This is very important. Does "treaty" mean an amendment to a treaty? I imagine that it does, but should we not be a little more specific? We need the advice of the Government Front Bench on these matters.
The treaty of 22nd July 1975 was a treaty amending the original Treaty and making important changes in financial provision. It was called a treaty, and it is straightforward, but is it always the case that amendments to treaties will be called treaties, and, therefore, are they always all covered under the Bill? Would it be right to add words to put that beyond doubt?

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I think that the difficulty in this matter arises from the fact that Article 236, which deals with amendments to the Rome Treaty and introduces the provision that they will be subject to the ratification of the national legislatures according to their own constitutional procedures, does not proceed further to define the instrument in which the amendment will be clothed. I have said many times here and elsewhere that the EEC Treaty is not a masterpiece of precise draftsmanship. I imagine—if I may for a moment assume the role of advocates diaboli and help the Foreign Secretary—that it is for that reason that

the second part of his new clause widens the scope as far as possible to include all the possibilities that we can envisage.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I imagine it, guess it and suspect it, but whether it is beyond doubt in the words set down I am not sure. We would like strong reassurance on this point.
Another point concerns the wording of Article 236 and the phrase used several times by the Foreign Secretary. The article states:
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
What is stated in the new clause is that there shall be approval by an Act of Parliament. Again, I suppose—perhaps we can have it confirmed—that approval by Act of Parliament corresponds with and fully satisfies in every way the phrase "respective constitutional requirements".
Might it perhaps sign and seal this aim if we set out in the new clause—it could be added on Report—that this approval will be one of the constitutional requirements under Article 236? I do not know. It would be a pity if we found ourselves in a tangle in future if it turned out that there were some doubts as to whether "approval" and "respective constitutional requirements" were exactly and equally identical with each other.
These are matters which worry me immediately on the new clause. As I have said, I make no complaint that it goes wider. Many of us suspected that the right hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in devising a clause on the rather narrow basis about which he spoke. I note what he said about the Royal Prerogative. At one stage the Home Secretary said that he thought there would be problems about it, but I accept the Foreign Secretary's assurance that these have been overcome.
I am still left as much in the air as are the right hon. Member for Battersea, North and, I suspect, most of the Committee by the response to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on the division between the treatment which might apply to increases in the powers of the Council of Ministers and increases in powers of the Assembly.
An example was given to the right hon. Gentleman. Is there a situation in which a change involving an increase in the powers of the Assembly itself would demand the full legislative procedures and requires Acts put through Parliament, whereas a change in the powers of the Commission and other parts of the Community would merely go through as an order under the affirmative resolution procedure? If that is the case, it would be somewhat bizarre, but it might be the inevitable implication of the new clause.
We should like clarification of the valid points raised by my hon. Friend. We support the intention of the new clause, but there are important problems to be clarified. It is essential that we should ensure that there are no invalidating weaknesses in the clause, and we wish to reserve our right to look at the matter again before Report to see whether any improvements or amendments are necessary.

9 p.m.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It appeared from the speech of the Foreign Secretary, and it has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), that the new clause before the Committee affects to an important degree the Royal Prerogative.
I believe it is the case that no such proposal can be laid before the House of Commons unless the Queen's consent has, in the proper way, been signified by one of her Ministers. It may be that it can be signified at a particular stage. In the case of a Bill it is normal, though not a necessary requirement, that it is signified on introduction or on Second Reading.
On a matter which is so important, you may agree that before the Committee proceeds it should be certified as to the proper point at which that consent should be signified and whether we are entitled, in accordance with the rules of the House, to proceed with consideration of the new clause unless that consent has been so signified.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. If he will be good enough to look at page

595 of "Erskine May", he will see that the section dealing with amendments in Committee affecting the Crown states:
As it is for the House, and not for a committee, which cannot receive any communication from the Sovereign, to guard the interests of the Crown, no question can arise upon an amendment in committee as to whether the Queen's consent should be signified before the question is proposed. Many precedents exist of amendments, which affected the interests of the Crown, being made in committees on bills, and the Queen's consent being signified at a later stage".

Mr. John Prescott: I welcome the new clause and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, though I wonder whether the new clause will achieve the objectives that my right hon. Friend stated for it.
My right hon. Friend made clear the political objective of the Government to prevent the development of a federal Europe and to prevent the growing power of the European Assembly without the House having some say in the matter. That means that when powers are to be extended by a treaty the House should be able to express an opinion on the matter.
I do not want to spend too much time on the technical points, important though they are. I looked at the new clause as a politician who was wondering whether it would achieve its intended purpose and considered it against the yardstick of my experience in the European Assembly rather than on whether treaty changes are the only way by which the Assembly can achieve power. I do not believe that this is the only way that the Assembly can achieve power. If that is what the amendment is designed to achieve, I have to tell my right hon. Friend that it does not achieve it.
If we said that the Assembly requires legislative power, the treaty would have to be amended and the House would be able to express an opinion on the treaties as such. I have read about the Ponsonby Rule and the Procedure that is supposed to be adopted in regard to treaties and amendments. That makes it clearer that Parliament has the power to make a decision on whether it agrees with a change in the treaty.
However, I wish to address my remarks to the point whether the proposal prevents the extension of power by the Assembly. I have very serious doubts about that. I


take as my text for the debate the policy documents produced by the Labour Party and endorsed by our party conference. I refer, for example, to the national executive's statement on the Common Market to the conference:
Our objective is to work towards the creation of a wider but much looser grouping of European states—one in which each country is able to realise its own economic and social objectives under the sovereignty of its own Parliament.
This is endorsed in the letter from the Prime Minister to the national executive, in which he stated:
We do not envisage any significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament",
in the sense that he desired to achieve and maintain the authority of national Governments and Parliaments.
Whatever the technical difficulties, there are fundamental objections to the proposal on the question whether it achieves the purpose of preventing powers being given to the Assembly. As I have said in articles and in the House of Commons, I am very much aligned with my party's document. I do not wish to see the development of a federal Europe, but I will not expand on those views, as it would not be proper to do so within the purview of the debate.
The quotations make it clear that the purpose of the amendment is to allow Parliament to maintain authority over the development of further powers given to the European Assembly. Therefore, the key to the argument is whether any developments are increasing the powers of the Assembly and, if they are, whether this institution, this Parliament, has any control over those developments. There is no doubt that those powers are being increased.
My right hon. Friend, in talking about the budgetary powers of the European Assembly, and its demanding more than the Council of Ministers had agreed, said that the difficulty about disagreeing with it is that there may be a crisis. If we continue to give to it and it continues to ask, there may be a crisis the other way. The control of the source of the supply of money is an important part of an institution's influence over the money supply and the policies which it seeks to influence. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), when he said that Parliament had

started from very humble beginnings. He said that Parliament could grow from those beginnings, whether we called it a Parliament or an Assembly.
Therefore, the Committee has to be clear that all we are doing tonight, in a very limited way, is to give the House of Commons the right to check any changes in the powers of the European Assembly brought about by a direct change in the Treaty. We are doing that and nothing more. We kid ourselves if we think that it in any way measures up to our obligations as part of a policy approach to the development of the Assembly's powers.
I fully agree with the view, expressed in the Prime Minister's letter, that embarking upon elections to an Assembly is clearly a major step towards giving the institution a major parliamentary form, whether or not it has a legislative function. It is to the gradual process that I particularly object, because we continue to fail to define the specific functions of, and relationships between, institutions. We spend too much time arguing the finer points, fundamental as they may be, and do not look clearly at the relationship that we expect between the institutions and begin to define them a better way.
I have some doubt whether elections will come for a number of years yet, but when the European Assembly is elected those elected to it will demand more influence. We should be foolish not to accept that. Everyone, on both sides of the argument, will accept that that is the purpose and role that he sees for that parliamentary Assembly.
On the basis of my own experience, I want to examine how the policies are developing, and particularly budgetary controls, which give the Assembly considerable influence, influence that is growing all the time. The House of Commons did not oppose a further extension of the budgetary powers, giving the Assembly much greater powers than might be restricted by this kind of amendment. With the development of budgetary controls, we see the major developments of parliamentary control. The more I look at them, the more despondent I become about whether we shall prevent the development of a European Parliament which is at the heart of a federal Europe. If we desire that it should be


a consultative assembly and not a Parliament, I hope that we shall act quickly to prevent that happening.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made clear that the Assembly has power to reject the budget. That right was endorsed within the Treaty and again in 1970, but more important was what happened in 1975, when a treaty change came before the House of Commons. It was debated but not opposed. We debated on 8th December 1975 an order which amended the pre-accession treaties. The schedule to the order covered the Assembly's budgetary powers and the establishment of an audit court.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, told the House in that debate that the 1970 treaty stipulated that from 1st January 1975 the full own resources system applied to the Six original members. My right hon. Friend said that the order sought further to extend the Assembly's powers. He said:
The first is when the Assembly seeks a modification to the budget which does not involve an increase in the total of obligatory expenditure … That change in the budget is accepted by the Council of Ministers unless the Council of Ministers provides a qualified majority against the new proposals.
We have given the Assembly powers not only to reject the budget with certain qualifications but to have the last word in non-compulsory expenditures, expenditures in areas not covered by the treaty requirements. These can be major areas of policy, such as regional policies, social funds, energy, research and development and industrial policies. All these are non-obligatory expenditures, and they are the fastest growing areas of expenditure. By the very nature of present circumstances, particularly economic and political circumstances, they are the very areas that must grow.
In the change in 1975 we thus endorsed the Assembly's power not only to reject the budget but to affect expenditure priorities within the non-compulsory expenditures. The Assembly can take the matter further and increase the amounts, as it has done this year. In addition, it now has the power to inter

vene in expenditures in the obligatory sectors, such as the common agricultural policy.
One hopes that the CAP will change. Perhaps it will reduce its share of the total budget, which is about 70 per cent. Presumably that would affect the Community's ceiling of expenditure, now to be determined by its own resources formula at the equivalent of about one per cent. value added tax. This would mean that more money would be available for non-obligatory expenditure, even within that one per cent. VAT limit. That is quite apart from any further changes that may come in the raising of resources that do not necessarily mean a change in the treaty. That may be a contentious point, but I emphasise that I refer to changes that do not necessarily mean such a change.
9.15 p.m.
We have extended the powers of the Assembly. In a way, we have weakened the power of the Council of Ministers, which is the legislative body. We have given powers to the Assembly to establish a case and to fight for it, but have provided a qualified majority argument. If any two of the largest members in the Community agrees to a proposition, there is sufficient strength to override the other seven nations. That is the position, provided that the two large nations in qualified judgment agree with the line taken by the Assembly. To that extent, its powers and influence considerably extend into the sphere of the Council of Ministers.
If we are looking for examples of what is happening in the non-compulsory areas of expenditure, let us take the last budgetary expenditure. The Parliament was able to achieve more than the Council of Ministers, even at the negotiating stage where an argy-bargy takes place.
The situation this year provides an even more important indication. This year the stage was reached when the Assembly rejected the first stage of the negotiations. However, it went to the second stage. We heard my right hon. Friend explain that as we did not want a crisis we backed down. He said that the European Assembly became, in effect, a Parliament. It said, in effect, that it controlled the budget and the supply of money of the Council of Ministers, which


by treaty is a legislative function. In regard to the budget, I grant that it has total power not to exceed it.
The European Assembly argued that it wanted more for regional needs—for example, unemployment and social purposes. Submissions were made that it was difficult for the Ministers to reject, and its supply of money was increased. I think that the sum involved was about £40 million, but that does not matter. This is about giving the Assembly a certain sum one year and then witnessing it returning the next year and taking more. It may be thought that non-elected Members are not especially militant, but we can be sure that elected members will be militant. They will demand more and more resources.
At present non-obligatory expenditures are about 30 per cent. of the total expenditure of about £8,000 million, which will be available for all the funds that I have mentioned. For example, the Regional Fund will expand. People will demand more and more Regional Fund expenditure. There is also Social Fund expenditure.
The influence and control of the European Assembly in this area is determined by Article 235, but provided that all nations agree—regional policy does not come under the Treaty—there may be an extension of influence and power into that area. Therefore, Article 235 does not require a Treaty change, and it becomes a debatable subject for the Assembly.
If we look at that development with others, the present 1 per cent. value added tax is but 0·7 per cent. of the GNP of all Community nations. The McDougall Committee that is examining the finances of the Community is calling for considerably more resources to be given to the Community. Let us say that there is a call for 5 per cent. of the GNP of all the Community nations from the President of the Commission, who desires to see economic and monetary union. It may be that he would like about £50,000 million to be made available to the Community. That would be equivalent to 8 per cent. value added tax.
I know that I have laboured the point, but I wish to make it clear that the question of resources is essential to whether this institution is a Parliament or an Assembly. Whether it legislates is but a

secondary function. By determining the money supply and priorities of expenditure, it determines what policies shall be pursued. Provided that it is doing that, it is not a consultative Assembly but a Parliament. If Members are elected, they will argue about who legislates what. To all intents and purposes, it is a policy.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest. I am not sure whether he is in favour of this process. During the past few months I have heard him making calls to increase the budget when I have been trying to reduce it and been defeated. Is he in favour of this process or not?

Mr. Prescott: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should not have noted that I have voted against increases in the budget. I have constantly argued against increasing the budget of the European Assembly both here and in the Assembly. It is a matter of record. I have made my position clear in speeches. My view is a minority view in the European Assembly. I sometimes find that it is a minority view here. But what is not in doubt is where I stand on particular issues. I do not want to delay the Committee by explaining my position. I understand the problem of the source of the money supply. There are certain complications within the Socialist Group regarding policy decisions.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as there is rarely a record of voting in the European Assembly how Members speak and vote is sometimes at variance, just as it has been on certain occasions between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends?

Mr. Prescott: I apologise for not having picked up the essential part of the hon. Lady's question. I cannot give an adequate answer to the question because I did not fully grasp it. That was more through my own inattention, and I apologise.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to grasp and to answer this question. Among the many interesting remarks that he made was a reference to Article 235 of the Treaty. Does he agree that under that Article


the powers and involvement of the Community can be considerably expanded without strict adherence to the presumed intentions of the Treaty, because it evades the requirement of an amendment under Article 236? The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have raised that matter in the Assembly, of which we are both Members, since before he becames a Member. I think that he could do quite a lot in his influential position there by following up this interesting matter that he has mentioned tonight.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friends who serve within the Socialist Group in the European Assembly know that I constantly raise that matter. That is why I am opposed to economic and monetary union, of which we shall hear more later.
I apologise to the Committee, because I shall have to leave at the conclusion of my speech. I have to be in Brussels tomorrow to vote in a committee at 9 a.m. Therefore, I shall have to catch a plane at 10.30 p.m. to get there in time. I apologise for this discourtesy. It is not my normal practice to make a speech and then to depart. In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will understand and will forgive me.
I have tried to indicate that the amendment is welcome, but that it will not achieve its political purpose. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said in a debate in the House on 28th November, we must call for a special parliamentary procedure to be instituted here so that all developments and decisions by the Council of Ministers are subject to some form of control.
I suggest that we should have a committee similar to the Danish committee. I have argued both outside and inside the House of Commons for such a committee to be set up here. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has promised to bring forward a proposal on those lines before the end of the Session. Acceptance of the amendment together with the setting up of such a committee will give the House of Commons control over the extension of powers of the European Assembly to which I object. We should maintain the Assembly as an Assembly within a loose association of States rather than allow it to develop as a federal

Europe and Parliament within its own control. That has always been my position. I hope that we shall hear something about that matter from the Government tonight.

Mr. Powell: The embarrassment of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in having to explain that he could not stay with us for the whole of this debate should not disturb him too much, because it is only a symptom and evidence of the humiliation under which the House lives by the sharing of what should be its exclusive powers with a body existing elsewhere.
In the course of his extremely able and cogent speech, the hon. Gentleman said, I hope I was right in thinking, that he did not expect direct elections to a European Assembly to take place for some time to come. To that I say a most fervent "Amen", and it is a responsibility every Member shares to play his part in that result if he is of the opinion that the hon. Gentleman expressed. But what the hon. Gentleman has done is to remove any notion that the clause in any way lessens the consequences for the House and the country of the substitution of direct election to the Assembly for the present method of nomination.
The innovation which the clause represents is, we have been told, a considerable constitutional innovation, but the more we examine it the less we shall think we have gained in return for that substantial innovation.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made an interesting intervention in which he pointed out that in form the new clause went far beyond the intentions that were spoken about at the time the Government undertook to bring it forward. That draws our attention to an important fact about the constitution of the European Economic Community. The question is: are there any powers which the Assembly can gain which are not ultimately at the expense of the House of Commons? I believe that the answer to that question is "No". Power gained by one authority must be at the expense of some other authority or authorities. Power does not simply exist in the atmosphere unclaimed. It is in some hands or other hands whether or not it is actually being used.
There are two other authorities at the expense of which the Assembly can increase its powers. One is the Commission and the other is the Council of Ministers. There is no doubt that, in so far as its increase in powers is at the expense of the authority and influence of the Council of Ministers, that must be a diminution of the powers of the House, since the powers of the House are exerted in the EEC through our influence over Ministers on the Front Bench. But when we look at the opposite pole—the Commission—and inquire what would be the result if the Assembly were to acquire powers at the expense of the Commission, we come paradoxically to the same conclusion.
Throughout, it has been the Commission which has been pressing forward direct elections and which has been anxious to see the authority and standing of the Assembly strengthened, because the Commission and the Assembly together would form that sort of combination which Executive and Parliament together form in the constitution of this country. For the Commission, the increase of the authority of the Assembly, the increase of its powers, whether formal or informal, is an accretion to the strength of the Commission. It is the centralised bureaucratic government of the Community that gains thereby. The strengthening of the Commission is, of course, ipso facto a diminution of the power and influence of the Council of Ministers. So, whichever way and in whatever circumstances the powers of the Assembly are increased, that increase must be in derogation of the real power and authority of the House of Commons.
9.30 p.m.
Therefore, the Government were right—no doubt they went through these thought processes themselves in the drafting of the new clause—not to attempt to define the sort of increase in the powers of the Assembly which would be at the expense of the House of Commons, but to draw the clause in the general terms in which it is before the Committee. But even when they have done that—and this is really the important conclusion to which all this debate is tending—we find that they have erected not a fortress of iron and stone but a paper fortress which merely presents the appearance of a

protection and control, without the reality. Even formally, it is very doubtful whether the requirement of legislation imposes any bar whatsoever.
There was a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) which bore upon this. The hon. Member was anxious to know whether, when the necessary legislation implied in the new clause was brought before the House of Commons, we should be able to amend it and what would happen if we amended it. I have to tell the hon. Member that those of us who lived through the early stages of the European Communities Bill in 1972 can give him the answer. We should not be able to amend any such Bill. It would be a Bill to authorise the ratification of such and such a treaty, and whatever in that Bill failed to authorise the ratification, whatever did not fully comply with the necessity for the Government to ratify that treaty, would be out of order. It would be outside the powers of the House of Commons, as we speedily discovered when we addressed ourselves in Committee to the European Communities Bill in 1972.
Therefore, even procedurally we should find that the tiger was a paper tiger and that there were simply no teeth, even in the requirement of legislation. It would be a rubber stamp of a legislative form instead of a merely resolution form.
But the inessentiality of this apparent protection goes much further and deeper than that. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East reminded the Committee, the increase of powers of an elected Assembly does not normally come, it does not suddenly originally come, by legislation, by formal recognition, by decision—"Let us have some more powers and have a resolution saying that we are to have those powers." That is not how it happens in real life. It happens by the growth of conventions, by the agreement or connivance between one authority and another—between the Commission and the Assembly, or, perhaps, between the Assembly and the Council of Ministers—that certain things will be done or will not be done, provided that, or unless, the agreement of the Assembly has been forthcoming. It is convention upon which the powers of an elected Assembly and of a Parliament are based.
After all, anyone who examined our constitution today in its formal structure would come to the conclusion that Her Majesty was able to dispose of anything which the House of Commons might care to pass, but it has been a convention since 1707 that she does not do so; and it is the convention which is king, not the form of the constitution, not the formal powers, not the treaty powers.
We are, therefore, laying hands upon the inessential while the increase of powers, the essential, evades us, because, of the order of things, it takes place not by specific decision, not by agreement, but by the growth of convention, the growth of agreement and the production of successive crises.
It was a very significant term that the Foreign Secretary used. He said that the Assembly can "produce a crisis". It has been by producing a series of crises over the centuries that the House of Commons has gained its powers. Of course, when the powers are gained it may or may not be convenient to come along and say "Let us regularise the situation, let us have an international agreement, let us have a treaty under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome." But by that time the powers actually will have been increased. The horse will have bolted.
When that happens, the presentation of the Bill in the House will be a formality in more than the technical sense to which I referred earlier, for the Government, when they come with the Bill and with the treaty, will appeal to what is common knowledge. They will say "This agreement, this treaty, merely accepts what everybody knows has long been the practice. It is merely consecrating, it is merely regularising, that which cannot be reversed, that which has come to be the practice, and it is acknowledging powers which already exist."

Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not far more likely that they will not even bother and that, because the conventions actually grow up and because of the difficulties of getting the treaties ratified by every member Government, this provision will in fact never be used at all?

Mr. Powell: Quite likely, and if the EEC were a British institution I would agree with the hon. Gentleman without reservation, because that is exactly the

way in which we go about things. We leave the form standing and we change the reality inside the outer framework. I have a feeling, however, that that is not the Continental habit. So maybe we shall find that there is a certain bureaucratic or legalistic fussiness which from time to time comes along behind and consolidates the ground which has actually been won.
It is also another way—this is the last aspect to which I want to draw the Committee's attention—in which, without any formal increase of powers, unacknowledged, silently, the very existence of a directly elected European Assembly is bound to reduce the powers and significance of the House of Commons.
The Foreign Secretary said that we should find that our control and scrutiny of what the EEC did would be strengthened by the work of a directly elected Assembly. I believe that exactly the opposite is the case. He said—and he was right so far—that the European Assembly, especially with its new-cut teeth, if it is directly elected, will be able to give much more detailed scrutiny, much more continuous scrutiny, backwards and forwards—several stages of scrutiny—to matters in which the Community has engaged. I am sure that that is true. But what effect will that have upon the endeavours of the House—not so far entirely successful—to exert control over EEC legislation and EEC policy? What will be the practical effect?
We know how difficult it is to get anything on to the Floor of the House for an hour and a half in the early hours of the morning. We can manage to do so only because we do it on the basis of the claim that this is the only control which the people of the country have over the legislation which is to be imposed upon them. It will be a very different story that we shall hear during Business Question Time on a Thursday and on such other occasions when there is a directly elected Assembly. We shall soon begin to hear that this has all been gone into thoroughly, and what is the point of just spending an hour and a half on an out-of-date memorandum on proposals which are in a stage that is already obsolete when we have an Assembly directly elected for the purpose which is scrutinising the matters in committee hour after hour and which can scrutinise them at successive stages?

Mr. Jay: Did the right lion. Member notice that we had an example of this even this afternoon when one of my hon. Friends said that it was not in the power of the Committee to discuss the number of Members which we should send to the EEC Assembly because that had all been settled by the other Governments earlier? If that can be argued even before we have a directly elected Assembly, what will happen afterwards?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that that is so. However, it is a much more dramatic presentation to try to imagine the sort of debates, ineffective as they have been, that have taken place over the past few years and to imagine them in circumstances in which we already have a directly elected Assembly working with a fine-tooth comb over all these matters and placing upon them the impress of its own policy, its own decisions and its own determinations. We shall soon be told that we have a body which is specially elected by the people of this country to do that work, and why should we want to duplicate it so ineffectively and so unauthoritatively in this House of Commons?
No. There, the Foreign Secretary had it exactly wrong. It is not the scrutiny of the House which will be strengthened by the European Assembly in its proposed new form. The scrutiny and control of the House over EEC legislation will be destroyed by such an institution, because the two cannot exist together.
I do not say that the Government have not honestly attempted in the clause to do what they promised. They have. But the very attempt to do so and the futility of it when it is examined show the nature of the decision, if we take it, to substitute a directly elected Assembly for the present Assembly in the EEC. It is a step which is irreconcilable with the continued sovereignty of the House of Commons over our Executive, let alone over the Executive of the Common Market.

Mr. John Lee: I am grateful for an opportunity to take part in this debate. I did not anticipate being called quite so soon.
I begin by making an observation which I hope will not be regarded as churlish. It seems extraordinary that in a debate of constitutional importance of

this kind neither of the Law Officers is in attendance, nor, for that matter, is the Lord Advocate, although, of course, he has been busy and has had other problems this week. At any rate, I had assumed that one or other of the Law Officers would be here to assist the Foreign Secretary when he was having difficulties with the more technical aspects of the clause.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: They have been in court.

Mr. Lee: It may be argued that they have been in court today, but so have I—

Mr. Skinner: Apology accepted.

Mr. Lee: —and I do not see that that is any excuse for their non-attendance this evening.

Mr. Jay: In order to assist the Committee, would not it be useful if my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) were to ask the Minister of State whether we were to have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General, or, at any rate, of one of the Law Officers, as surely we clearly should before this debate ends?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend the Minister of State has heard that intervention. I hope that he will pass it on and that it will wing its way back behind the Chair to the appropriate room in that part of the building.
Next I must express my own appreciation, because I think that the Government have seriously attempted to grapple with this problem. But, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the mere attempt, however well intentioned, serves only to demonstrate the futility of the exercise when it is set against so many uncertainties.
9.45 p.m.
The Foreign Secretary gave some rather interesting and perhaps unintentional examples of the difficulties that arise when he attempted to grapple, not altogether successfully, with the "grey" area of treaties provisionally in force but not yet ratified. I am not sure what is meant by that, and I am far from certain as to how these matters can be clarified.
We are not only engaged in the whole gamut of EEC matters—to which I am


so resolutely opposed—but in this part of the Bill we are engaged in the novel exercise of whittling away the prerogative right to make a treaty by attempting to make it subject to statutory regulation. This seems to give another reason for arguing for the amendment that stands in my name.
I must make it clear why I have put down the amendment. I want to clarify beyond peradventure that any dispute about the interpretation of the powers that the House seeks to cede—and I hope that it will never cede any more—will lie within the courts of this country.
One has only to look at Articles 235 and 236 and also to remember the way in which, by its power of budgetary manipulation, the Assembly, still an ostensibly nominated body, has nevertheless arrogated to itself by one device or another powers which were really not envisaged as part of its functions.
I do not want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Down, South said with his usual lucidity and succinctness, but the fact is that these things tend to snowball. There is no legislative Assembly in the world whose powers remain static. They either grow and grow, or they fade away and the Assembly expires. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that there should be provisions of the kind that I have stipulated. I make no apology for my emphatic use of words when I say:
For the avoidance of doubts, the interpretation of the provisions of this Clause shall rest exclusively with the Courts of the United Kingdom, from whom no appeal shall lie on any matter relating thereto whatsoever to the Court of the Community or Courts outside the United Kingdom.
Those words are not otiose. They are necessary to give emphasis, so that there can be no mistaking the purpose in the courts.
New fields of law always provide maximum uncertainty. Let me give an example from an entirely different field of law. The courts of this country had numerous cases over interpretation of the Restrictive Trades Practices Act 1956 in the period immediately after its passing. There was a great spate of cases for a short time, but they scarcely exist now. Here we had a developing field of law. Surely it is important to control the way in which these things happen.
I shall give some precedents. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a good example of the reverse process to that of the Community. As members of the Commonwealth have become independent, with rare exceptions they have sought to emancipate themselves from the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. In some instances they have even succeeded in doing so illegally. In one instance the court itself purported to declare the invalidity of a Canadian statute in the 1930s. I quote:
In Nadan v. The King the Judicial Committee held invalid a section of a Canadian statute abolishing appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases. The section was repugnant to the provisions of the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844 and was therefore void under the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865".
In more recent years, no serious attempt has been made to continue fettering newly independent Commonwealth countries, by declaring them subordinate to the Judicial Committee appellate unless they have chosen to be. Most have chosen not to be.
If we are in earnest in saying that we wish to set a limit to the powers, or we think that we are setting a limit, surely there can be no objection to including, a provision in the Bill to make it impossible for appeals to go to the Court. It is strange in a week when we have heard rather a lot about Scotland. One is reminded of that provision in the Act of Settlement which debarred criminal appeals from Scotland to the House of Lords. The buck stops in Edinburgh. I understand from Scottish lawyers in the House, who know more about this than I, that for a time it was thought that there was no civil appellate judiciary. It was revived in somewhat dubious circumstances some 30 years after the Act of Settlement.
Long before devolution became a live issue and long before the SNP appeared on the Benches opposite, the Scots jealously guarded their right to control the judicial interpretation of one facet of their law. Surely we are entitled to do the same with matters that are of importance.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the Commonwealth position. Of the 31 independent countries of the Commonwealth, only the Bahamas, Fiji, Gambia, Jamaica,


Malaya, Mauritius, New Zealand, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Australia retain the right of appeals to be heard by the Judicial Committee. When South Africa was in the Commonwealth, I believe that only five appeals on criminal matters ever went to the Privy Council. In view of the Draconian character of the criminal law of that country, it is not surprising that it withered away.
I remind the Committee of what Article 177 of the Treaty says about these matters, because it is important for the Committee to remember what the powers are. The article states:
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon. Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
We have had some strange preliminary examples of this. I can mention two dissimilar matters that have been brought up.
Last year in London, a magistrates' court adjourned for a reference to be made to the Court of the Community for interpretation of our immigration laws on the question of the powers of deportation. We have seen—it has exercised the House on more than one occasion—the way in which the Minister of Agriculture has been restrained by at any rate an interim decision of the Court last summer from implementing or continuing to implement the pig subsidy. That matter still awaits final determination. The fact that it is a matter of such urgency, bearing as it does upon that part of the farming community that is perhaps best qualified to claim, if there is any such claim, an increase in revenue, and that it should be so delayed is an illustration of the difficulties we have to endure while we submit ourselves to judicial processes outside this country.
My amendment does not correct that fault. However, at least I seek, and hope that the Government will be prepared to accept, that as far as these matters are concerned they shall be interpreted in a court in this country.
We all know the methodology of Continental courts, which is so different from our own. They are much more influenced by Roman and Roman Dutch law than we are. We provide two judges for the Court of the Community. To hark back again to the example of the Privy Council, it was often the source of resentment among independent Commonwealth countries that they should be, to use words uttered many years ago,
fettered by the unhelpful decisions of distant judges".
That is surely applicable even though the distance is not quite so great from here to Luxembourg as it may be from Ottawa to the Privy Council in Downing Street.
So the Government should have nothing to fear from accepting my amendment. I do not know, but there are rumours that they intend to resist it. I hope they do not. If they say that the amendment is unnecessary, it is at any rate a safeguard which does no harm. If the Government share the lurking doubts that some of us have that something is needed to make certain that the powers will not always be at risk of being interpreted to the further detriment of the domestic English law, they must accept the case for the amendment.
Do Ministers fear that if the amendment is accepted this will itself be the subject of judicial challenge in the Community and that we shall be faced, as we have not so far been faced, with a direct constitutional clash between this country and the Court of the Community? It has always been said by Ministers, from either party, who have been seeking to reassure those of us who are sceptical that we can always repeal the European Communities Act 1972. One day, I suppose, that will be put to the test. I do not see any prospect of it at the moment while the payroll vote seems to be able to override the endemic anti-Market feelings of the Labour Party.
As for the Conservative Party, with the exception of a gallant band of six or seven, very few of its Members are likely to put it to the test, so we shall not know for a very long time, if at all, whether any Act of repeal passed in the House would be in danger of being voided, in legal theory at any rate, by a decision of the Court of the Community.
10.0 p.m.
If, however, my amendment is accepted, it presents a direct challenge to the Court. I make no apology for that, because we shall then, and very soon I suspect, have a showdown on the matter. Then we shall know whether all this talk and all the reassurance that has been given are just so much humbug, as many of us believe them to be, or whether the situation really is that, at least in legal theory, we in 1972 did what many of us believed was the case and effected an irreversible cession of sovereignty; and, at least in a technical sense, we shall need to commit an act of revolution to repeal it, an act of revolution which may be peaceful and which one hopes will happen that way.
My belief is that it will become a matter where force majeure applies only when the day comes—I have used this fanciful but by no means impossible analogy before—when a tipstaff from the Court of the Community comes into the House, brushes aside the Serjeant at Arms and arrests the Minister of Agriculture for illegally paying a subsidy which has been authorised under the supposed powers of the House of Commons. Let us see what the Minister has to say. In the fullness of time, if the Chair permits, I shall move the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept it, because this would be a very good opportunity for a denouement with the Community.

Mr. Ian Percival: I should like to raise a question of law while there is still time for the Minister to consider it or to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in sending for a Law Officer to advise the Committee on it if the Minister does not know the answer.
The Government's case for the new clause depends on the twin propositions that the powers of the Assembly can be altered only by amendment of the Treaty of Rome and that that amendment can be made only by a process which comes within the definition of "treaty" in subsection (2) of the clause. Unless both those propositions are sound, the observations that the new clause does not do as much as it professes to do are well founded. Already in this debate doubt has been cast on the proposition in two

quite different ways. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) raised practical arguments why the effect would not be what is intended.
I rise to raise this point of law. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says that there is an alternative way of giving additional powers to the Assembly by employing Article 235 of the Treaty. Some support was given to that in the Bell Report. The argument is that, if the situation under Article 235 can be said to have arisen, the appropriate measures which can be taken by the Council might include giving additional powers to the Assembly. The general view is that this is not a sound argument, but, as it has been raised by at least one right hon. Gentleman in this debate, either we ought to have the benefit of the advice of the Minister of State on what is purely a matter of law or—this is why I am raising it now—if he feels that he cannot deal with it himself, there is still time to bring a Law Officer to advise the Committee on it.

Mr. Christopher Price: This is the first time that I have spoken in this Committee, but it is an important evening for me as far as Europe is concerned. A year ago, I was elected by my colleagues, somewhat by accident, as a member of the delegation to the European Assembly, and today I decided—indeed, I did so some time ago—that I had had enough and that one year was plenty. I went on as a mild sceptic and come off as a deep cynic. I went on somewhat by accident and I have come off with a deliberation that my friends seldom find in me.
All my experience of a year in the Assembly points to the problems we have heard about in the debate. Is it a consultative Assembly or a sovereign Parliament? Or is it a nascent sovereign Parliament? For the record, I find it unutterably tedious as a consultative Assembly, and I would find it terrifying if it ever were to get the powers of a sovereign Parliament.
It is said that the powers of the present Assembly seem minimal. People say that it has certain powers over the budget and that it can sack the Commission. But the powers seem minimal at the moment because, as constituted, the Assembly does not even try to use any independent powers of its own.
Hitherto, the Assembly has been very much the Commission's poodle. To paraphrase the title of one of his own books, it might be right to call it "Mr. Jenkins's Poodle". Time and again, day after day, vote after vote, it does exactly what the Commission tells it to do. A vast number of the reports that come from the Assembly, each bearing the name of some parliamentarian or other—there has even been a Price Report in my brief year there—are not even written by the individual; they are written by the secretariat of the committee concerned on information supplied by the Commission.
So, at the moment, the Assembly is a mangy old sheepdog which would not bite anyone or do any harm. This lulls us into a sense of complacency, perhaps, in thinking that there is no great danger of the Assembly getting any more power except by the sort of change in the Treaty which, according to New Clause 8, has to have the consent of this Parliament. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have exposed the deep fallacy of the new clause.
The fallacy concerns the nature of power. No one ever gives anyone power. People take power. This Parliament has taken power. The danger is that, after direct elections, without any change in the Treaty, a situation could arise where the Assembly, more and more calling itself a Parliament, would, little by little, year by year, use the threat of the large powers it has to accrete to itself all sorts of small powers in a conspiratorial alliance with the Commission to frustrate the decisions of the Council of Ministers, and thereby to frustrate our Ministers and to prevent action such as that which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been taking over the past few weeks in standing up for the House of Commons.
Let us imagine what might happen. After direct elections, there may be a Socialist majority in the Assembly that would elect Willi Brandt as President of the Parliament. Alternatively, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) might stand and be elected President by the conglomeration of Right-wing parties in the Parliament—though they do not get on very well at present. If the President of the new directly elected

Parliament, which would have a certain amount of prestige, started throwing his weight about with the Commission and the Council of Ministers, enormous power and influence could be taken by the Parliament without any change in the Treaty so that this poor little new clause would not have the slightest effect.
These things happen slowly. There is a great contrast between this place and the bunch of places in Europe where they will probably end up with at least three parliamentary buildings. There is already one in Luxembourg, a group of Luxembourg banks is going into the "on spec" building of another Parliament in the hope that someone will rent it, there is the new building at Strasbourg, and most members of the Assembly are determined to take over the redundant Banque Lambert in Brussels.

Mr. Dykes: If the hon. Gentleman dislikes the European Parliament, why does he stay there and continue to draw his expenses?

Mr. Price: I have asked myself what I was doing there. I was about to draw a contrast to show how power could grow in Europe. Our civil servants do not take too much notice of Parliament, but at least our Questions get answers and we can get certain information. At least if we write a letter or put down a Question, it has a little red tab attached to it as it zooms around Whitehall sending junior civil servants into a flat spin.
In the Assembly the situation is the opposite. One is lucky to get a written question answered within six months. There is no machinery for forcing the Commission to take notice of the Parliament. I do not blame the Commission. It is staffed mostly by bright, over-paid young Europeans who despise the Parliament because they think that they are running Europe. In many ways, they are.
However, if the new Assembly starts flexing its muscles, getting its questions anwered and taking itself seriously—as many people hope that it will—the power of that Parliament will grow and the new clause will have no effect in preventing that growth.
I have enjoyed myself over there. I used to wonder why the Assembly met at Strasbourg and stopped at 8 p.m. sharp for dinner. Then I realised what the


common agricultural policy was all about. It is about the obsession of Europeans with food and the Gargantuan way they go about it after their tasks are over for the day.
It is all very pleasant, but it could change from a rather sloppy, pleasant Assembly into a serious Parliament. I accept that there are circumstances in which it could change and become little more than a sort of city council comprising some elderly superannuated politicians who know how to get themselves selected. In that case, it might be no more powerful than at present for a few years. If it goes on existing, it will want the power. It will get the power. It might even, I would say to the right hon. Member for Down, South, be infected by a little English pragmatism and not bother about changing any more treaties but simply accrete this power.
For those people who want that to happen, this is fair enough. That is what they have been after for the last 10 or 20 years. That is what some of my German Socialist and Italian Socialist colleagues in the Assembly want and have been fighting for since the Second World

War. I accept that. But for those of us who believe in trying to maintain this Parliament as the sort of Parliament that takes itself seriously it is the end, because the two cannot live side by side.
10.15 p.m.
As the European Assembly takes crucial decisions of the kind talked about by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East over the whole range of economic policy, if it uses these powers, there is nothing left here. I accept that that is what many people want. But I do not think that anyone should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the belief that the amendment, or even the amendment to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) will make any real difference to the way in which power accretes. I do not know whether it will.
I suspect that the EEC may fold over the next 10 to 20 years and become a sort of EFTA. But if it does not, the Assembly has sufficient powers which are not being used to pose a significant threat to everything that we do here.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) raised a number of legal points. The hon. and learned Member for Southport asked whether we could have a Law Officer present to give his interpretation of the situation. We have had no reply from my hon. Friend the Minister. He has not indicated to the Committee whether a Law Officer is to explain these matters and give his learned opinion. On a matter of this sort it is essential that the Committee has the best possible legal advice. The Minister should make some response.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): Perhaps I may intervene briefly on this point, because I understand that there is some anxiety on both sides of the Committee. We have been into the matter in some detail. From our standpoint it is inconceivable that Article 235 could be used to extend the powers of the Assembly. It would be completely contrary to the terms of the Treaty. If hon. Members who have expressed concern in the Committee this evening look at Article 235 they will see that it refers to the objectives. This answers the anxiety which has been expressed. The Assembly is not an objective in that sense.

Mr. Jay: With all respect to my hon. Friend, whom we are honestly trying to assist in order that he may be able to give the Committee proper legal advice, it is not only Article 235 that is at issue here. Among others, the additional point has been raised of the legal definition of an international agreement. My right honourable Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was asked this question and did not even pretend to know the answer. He said frankly that he did not know it and that it would be given later in the debate by someone with more legal knowledge than he had. It has not been given on any point except on the question of Article 235.
We are raising this point of order because there is time, before the hour gets too late, for the Government to see that proper legal advice is available on the Front Bench, in accordance with all precedent. I hope that with your help,

Mr. Murton, my hon. Friend may avail himself of this opportunity before it is too late. It would be deplorable if the Committee had to decide without proper information on the legal meaning of the amendment.

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The right hon. Gentleman knows that he must not appeal to me for help. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Judd: I understand the Committee's anxieties, but I also recognise that there is a great deal of feeling, not least on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), about the shortage of time available for debate. Therefore, I was deliberately holding back, giving as many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber as possible an opportunity to intervene. If the Committee wishes, I shall certainly deal with some of these points as they occur, but in my view this will deprive other hon. Members of the opportunity to intervene.
One question, put by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), was whether a treaty amending a basic Community treaty was a treaty within the meaning of the clause. The answer is "Yes", but no further phraseology is needed. Amendments to the treaties can be made only by international agreement between member States, ratified according to their national constitutional requirements. Any such amending treaties which increase the powers of the European Assembly will henceforth require approval by Act of Parliament before the Government can ratify.
The other point, also properly raised by the hon. Gentleman, was whether Parliament could amend a Bill to authorise an increase in the Assembly's powers. Again, the answer is "Yes". Amendments can of course be tabled, but such a Bill would normally have only one clause. The choice for Parliament will normally be between authorising ratification and not authorising ratification. Parliament would not be able to alter the words of a treaty, but it could require the Government in some cases to ratify subject to a reservation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. David Howell: I am not sure whether we are still on a point of order,


Mr. Murton, or whether we have moved on to an intervention by the Minister.
What the hon. Gentleman said was interesting and useful, and it answers some of the points I raised. I am glad that before the end of the debate some of these matters are being made clearer, but we are worried about deeper matters. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) intervened earlier specifically on Article 235 to deal with the question outlined in that article, where the Community seeks to do more things, to attain more objectives, and finds that it does not have the powers under the treaty, so that certain procedures are set in motion that generate more powers. Presumably, some of those might go to the Assembly.
One of the questions that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have asked, among many others of some legal complexity, is whether that means that if the Assembly receives additional powers, certain safeguards are provided for the House of Commons. Does that involve a treaty coming before the House?
I freely confess, as did the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of himself, that I am not deeply versed in legal matters. The Minister of State would probably concede the same thing. Indeed, that is obvious from his brief comments so far.
These are very interesting matters. It would be a pity if the Government made themselves more vulnerable than they are already to the charge that insufficient advice has been given to the Committee. We need a legal authority on these matters. That is my opinion. I am not sure that the Minister of State is right to resist. We have given him time. We intervened half an hour ago to ask for someone to be sent for to advise the Committee. In the interests of the House of Commons as a whole, it would be wise if the hon. Gentleman did that.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of Order, Mr. Murton. I ask the Minister of State further to consider what arises from what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was saying about the need for a ruling on the definition of an international agreement for the purpose of the new clause. Is an

agreement between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament an international agreement within the terms of the clause? If, for instance, the Council of Ministers agreed not to use its regulation-making power unless it had the consent of the European Parliament, that would be a dramatic increase in the legislative powers of the European Parliament. If the Council of Ministers comes to an agreement with the European Parliament that it will pass no directly applicable regulations unless the European Parliament votes to approve them, is that an international agreement that would come within the terms of the clause? This is an important issue and I think, with respect, that it is probably the point in which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was interested.

The Chairman: I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are getting into points of order that in truth are not points of order at all. A fair amount of the Committee's time is being taken up in that way. I am not saying that the matter is not important, but certain right hon. and hon. Members are desirous of participating in the debate. I suggest that the matter of the so-called point of order has now been suitably ventilated.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton.

The Chairman: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

The Chairman: On a point of order, Mr. Dykes.

Mr. Dykes: Am I being called, Mr. Murton?

The Chairman: If it is not on a point of order.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has requested legal elucidation of these matters and I back up his request. With due respect to your ruling, Mr. Murton, I think that my hon. Friend's explanation was not consistent with Article 235 and that we need some legal support for the point that he has made.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in raising these matters, but that was certainly not a point of order.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for at long last being called, Mr. Murton. I agree with other hon. Members, irrespective of our global views on membership of the EEC, that the Minister, if I may say so without being offensive, made a pathetic attempt to help the Committee and has made matters much worse. The hon. Gentleman has failed to deal with the crucial question of subsection (2) in the new clause and the definition of an international agreement. That is the core of the trouble.
The debate has veered to a number of considerations that themselves have changed the tenor and nature of the debate. At the beginning I thought that there were hon. Members, perhaps mostly on the Opposition Benches—I speculate, but I assume that for the purpose of the argument—who were against the clause, in so far as we could understand it in its text, and regarded it as too sweeping. However, as a result of the single-handed achievement of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has now left the Chamber—it was a notable achievement to have made such a contribution and then to have left the Chamber to exercise a dual mandate—the fear began to develop that the clause was not sufficient. The two conflicting arguments were superseded by an argument from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and perhaps on this occasion we must agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever the word that might be encapsulated in an appropriate protecting clause of this sort, I have had increasing doubt about the validity and merit of the new clause as the debate has continued. I have doubt about the extent of its achievement. It would all be set aside by the existing practice, conventions and habits of a thrusting, energetic and modernised European Parliament in future, quite unlike the existing European Parliament.
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for being out of the Chamber at the beginning of his remarks. I did not realise that he had confessed his desire, as a result of his deep dislike of this pathetic institution as it now is, to leave this place as soon as possible. The

debate is crucial in a number of ways if only because the Committee has the opportunity to debate calmly and dispassionately the relationship of the House of Commons not only with the Executive of the United Kingdom, but with the European Community institutions—the three principal institutions with which we are concerned mainly, not so much the Court of Justice—as they develop in future.
10.30 p.m.
I suggest that the speculations of Labour Members below the Gangway as to what will happen are gross exaggerations and distortions. By contrast, I see more than just a useful and pragmatic coexistence developing among the various institutions in the context of the logical and calming development of an additional layer of political control through direct elections in the European context that will fit into any national Parliament's future ambitions, provided that it sorts out its own relationships with its national Executive.
I think that a much bigger problem faces the House of Commons in sorting out and concluding a stronger relationship with the United Kingdom Executive. That is a big problem that anti-Marketeers, irrespective of party, often ignore. But it is interesting to note that the development of Select Committees has gone agreeably the other way.
As long as the Council of Ministers remains—as inevitably it will under the Treaty—the supreme legislative body that controls finances, it is untrue, wrong, misleading and dangerous to infer that the finances are being controlled in a diffuse process other than through the central decision-making activities of the Council of Ministers. In so far as that will persist unchanged in future according to all reasonable parameters of anticipation of future political events in the European theatre, all these anxieties must, by definition, remain gross exaggerations.

Mr. Christopher Price: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when the Foreign Secretary admitted—and admitted for the first time—that the motive for the Council of Ministers giving way on this year's budget was to avoid a fuss. If the Council of Ministers is so keen to avoid a fuss with the present mangy old sheepdog of the


present Assembly, how keen will it be to avoid fusses if we have direct elections and the more thrusting Parliament of which the hon. Member has spoken?

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is making a point based erroneously on the careless language of the Foreign Secretary. The giving in to avoid a fuss is the grandiose decision-making of the Council of Ministers on repeated occasions whereby it makes limited concessions to a European Parliament which remains intrinsically weak—I think all too weak, even if not yet directly elected—and which will remain weak even if it is directly elected. There is no way that, even with the commanding heights of politicians from all the other countries, that central argument can be upset in future unless the Treaty of Rome were to be rewritten, changed and turned right round. However, that is totally inconceivable.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: Not at the moment. I think that I am right in saying that, aside from Front Bench contributions, my words are the first remarks of an adherent to the Community.
I should like to quote from a document called "The Powers of the European Parliament" which refers to a working party which examined the subject. The document calls for more powers, but admits that the reality is otherwise. I must be candid and say that, looking to the future, I would prefer it if the situation were different.
The document says on page 7:
Parliament's formal powers in the case of legislation where the Council of Ministers has the final decision is limited to the right to be consulted.
Again, the Council will from time to time make concessions and Parliament will express gratitude and will continue on its path.

Mr. Budgen: On the subject of the attitude of the Assembly, does my hon. Friend agree that many politicans see their primary duty as being, first, to make promises to the electorate and, so far as possible, to carry them out? Most of the promises are in terms of the

showering of Government money on people—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Goodies.

Mr. Budgen: Yes, goodies. Will there not inevitably be tension in the Assembly collectively to get together with the Commission to try to get more and more of the goodies from Europe to take back to constituents and to explain to them, first, what splendid Members of Parliament they have been and, secondly, what a marvellous institution it is that provides the goodies?

Mr. Dykes: There is no reason to disagree with that, but it is the working out in practice and the result that flows from it that my hon. Friend misunderstands. All that is a reflection of the concessions that the Council of Ministers will in future choose to make to the European Parliament.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. I prefer a European Parliament to what I would describe as civilised future power-sharing with a logical relationship with the institutions to be developed with it and for it to have more direct power. I prefer that to be clearly laid down in writing, as is the Community's habit, rather than developed by convention—save in some small areas—so that we know about it.
I should like to mention a domestic matter about this institution of which I am more fond than the European Parliament. I used to be a Member of the European Parliament, but I am no longer. The inability of this Parliament to scrutinise is a catastrophic weakness vis-à-vis this Executive and not vis-à-vis EEC institutions. As time passes I hope that the European Parliament, represented by conventional political forms reflecting our own domestic political and other groups, will interact with the political forms in this and other national Parliaments and will represent all citizens of Europe.
I hope I shall be forgiven if my remarks sound somewhat trite, but I do not think that is an unreasonable view for the future and no doubt it can be contradicted by those Labour Members who sit below the Gangway.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman quoted page 7 of the document which emphasises that the Parliament's formal


power is limited. Did the hon. Gentleman see the letter from Lord Gladwyn in the Daily Telegraph on 14th October in which he said:
I see the new Assembly, in fruitful cooperation with the Commission, submitting, by the requisite majority, sensible and constructive proposals in all spheres to the Ministers who will, in the nature of things, find it increasingly difficult to turn them down.
Is it not as likely that his prophecies will come true?

Mr. Dykes: I suppose that we could go on indefinitely swapping opinions about the future and failing, perhaps, to gaze into the crystal ball accurately. I ought to return to the new clause and try to relate it to my remarks.
The logical consequence of the argument that I have tried to put forward, albeit probably inadequately, must be that the new clause is not necessary, as the right hon. Member for Down, South, though for quite different reasons, suggested. But even if that were so, because I am reassured by what I regard as a much quieter future career for the European Parliament than is expected by many Labour Members, I would object strongly to the text.
I would object particularly because we have had no reassuring remarks from the Foreign Secretary, who was markedly careless and insouciant at the beginning of the debate and thereby made the debate worse. We acknowledge that he may have some justification in that he is preoccupied with Rhodesia and other weighty matters. None the less, he treated the Committee in a cavalier fashion, making a joke of the point that he could not deal with a reasonable, legal explanation of the new clause. Then there was much less of an unwelcome act by the Minister of State, adding to the confusion when he intervened a few minutes ago.
However, it is not for those reasons alone that I object. My concluding reasons for my objections are these. The Council of Ministers' operational syndrome—as well as its place in the Treaty, and, therefore, its constitutional existence in the Treaty of Rome and the European Community, and its continuation undoubtedly to operate on the principle of unanimity, certainly in respect of all treaty changes in the foreseeable future, that cannot be gainsaid, I should have thought,

by any hon. Member is the ultimate, 110 per cent. protection.

Mr. Bugden: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dykes: No, I should be taking up too much time.

Mr. Budgen: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Dykes: Well, I shall give way shortly.
It therefore renders this new clause, or any clause, completely unnecessary.
Then we might come to a less strong argument, one in which hon. Members may say "Let us get the strength of the insurance companies around us. Let us have the new clause just in case we need it". However, bearing in mind the anxieties already expressed by some clever constitutional lawyers in the Chamber—and there are many more who have not yet come into the Chamber and who are probably lurking outside but who will come in to give their views of the difficulties about these textual problems and the failure to give a proper definition of an international agreement—all that must mean that this House of Commons, in this solemn Committee of the whole House on the Bill, although guillotined, must deliberately refrain from creating bad law.
I should be wholly content to rest with the procedures of the House of Commons now, the affirmative orders and definition of treaty orders by which we now, under Section 2 of the European Communities Act, ratify or fail to ratify any of the treaties or treaty changes that have occurred so far.
I add another reason as my final point—I am trying to be brief. The new clause would also be rendered unnecessary as long as this is logic. I am not saying that other countries do things better than we do. I think that in constitutional matters Britain still leads Europe and many other parts of the world in its practices and constitutional political habits. But, within the context of the Council of Ministers and the continuation of the unanimity principle, one needs, presumably, only one member State to have a provision along these lines to provide the ultimate guarantee for all the members. That must be so.
Therefore, if any member State, because, for example, it has a constitutional history that is different from ours, has, for instance, a written constitution and something along these lines because the constitutional bodies in that country have decided that it is appropriate, I should have thought that that takes care of all the other provisions as long as the unanimity principle persists.
There is a country that has that. Perhaps we can for once look with interest to France.

Mr. Winifred Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dykes: I shall give way in a moment.
In France there were two direct election Bills. One was the election arrangements Bill, containing the administrative arrangements and the laws dealing with the procedure. The other was the constitutional Bill, in which there was a clause—I shall not bore the Committee by reading out all the words, particularly as they are in French—similar in textual characteristics to the new clause before the Committee. That is encapsulated in the French constitutional Bill.
But that is only because the French had to have that, because they have a written constitution, and it is a clause that also says what the Home Secretary said when he gave the original undertaking to the House—namely, that if there were any increase in powers which reduced or, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), was at the expense of the powers of the domestic Parliament, such and such a procedure would be invoked.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend deals at great length and, if I may say so, in a very legalistic way, with the question of treaties, but it is not the case that the real catalyst in any constitution is the budget? It was a catalyst in our constitution. It will be the catalyst within the European institutions. All this talk about the unanimity rule and so on, interesting though it may be in respect of the treaty-making powers, has nothing whatever to do with the budget and its inbuilt

tendency to expand the power of the Community.

Mr. Dykes: At the risk of repeating myself, I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that he has misunderstood how it operates. I am not being condescending when I say that, because my hon. Friend is a very clever person and a very distinguished lawyer, but he would understand these things if he had made a closer study of them.
The Council of Ministers controls the finances of the European Community. The European Assembly or Parliament does not. By way of concessions that the Council of Ministers may have decided to make in relation to the balance and the power-sharing relationship that might conceivably develop in the future—but is now really very marginal, indeed—the Council has, in a series of decisions, given a very limited amount of financial decision-making at the margin, in respect of certain limited items to the Parliament. It was the Council which decided that, and the Council could take those powers away. There will be no structural constitutional changes in the future as a result of the mere fact of direct elections.
It is because the text of the new clause now departs fundamentally from the original idea or suggestion made by the Government—they said that they would draft something which would reflect the relationship of this House to the European Community—that the Government are in danger of leading the House of Commons into a totally illogical and irrational trap. It will be unconstitutional in Community terms and, much more important, it will not help this House of Commons by one single centimetre to assert its future political and constitutional authority over the British Government.
Even more important that that in the Community context, it will not help in developing effective scrutiny procedures, which I, as a keen Marketeer—to use that derogatory phrase—believe very strongly to be necessary in the House of Commons. The Committee ought not to allow itself to be led by the Government into a trap which will do the House of Commons no good at all.

Mr. John Evans: For two and a half years I have had the privilege of representing my party in the European Assembly. During that time, although I


am generally recognised as someone who was always opposed to the Treaty of Rome, I have done my best to look after the interests, as I saw them, of the British people.
The Labour Party is a democratic party and ours is the only delegation to the European Assembly which elects its delegates. Tonight, as a result of the ballot, I shall no longer be a Member of the European Assembly.

Mr. Spearing: Shame.

Mr. Evans: I have enjoyed the two and a half years in which I have worked there. At times it has been hard and at times it has been interesting. I do not necessarily agree with the comment made earlier about useless sheepdogs. I wish my successor well. I know that he will do a good job and I expect that he will play a full part in the role of the Assembly.
For two and a half years I have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and undoubtedly for the last two years that he has been leader of the delegation he has done a tremendous job. He made tonight a very cogent and powerful speech in the course of which, as most hon. Members accepted, he shed some new light on various aspects of the Assembly.
I was disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) attempt to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was speaking with two voices—one voice here and another in the European Assembly. I am sure that even the most bitter opponents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will agree that they have heard him many times putting the very same arguments, often in the face of considerable hostility, in the European Assembly itself. He has argued strongly about the role and powers of the Commission, and he has argued for areas such as shipbuilding and textiles and about the effect of the Commission's actions on them. No one has heard him argue that the powers of the European Assembly should be strengthened, because he is on record repeatedly as being opposed to direct elections and opposed to strengthening the powers of that Assembly at the expense of those of the House

of Commons. It is a view that I share, and I have always attempted to put forward this argument. I believe that, once we move to direct elections, we shall be in an entirely new ball game.
I, too, have some suspicion about the value of new Clause 8. I am not a lawyer. Certainly I am not a constitutional expert. But I have the horrible feeling that the clause is giving us powers which in theory we have already. If the Treaty of Rome is to be altered to add to the powers, it must be ratified by the national Parliaments, in theory, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in what I thought was a rather poor performance at the Dispatch Box, was saying "We have drafted the clause in what we hope is a catch-all manner. We hope that it will settle all your problems and that we shall not be taken too far along this road." But, again, I have the horrible feeling that, when similar events occur in the future, if and when that Parliament becomes directly elected, and when we protest violently about what is going on in Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, we shall have the Attorney-General wheeled in to tell us what it was that we passed.
I agree with all those right hon. and hon. Members who have said that we should have the benefit of the Government's legal advice, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds in that respect. But one of the reasons for our difficulties is that every aspect of the EEC and its institutions has to be rushed. I do not want to raise all the old arguments about the Treaty of Accession or about the guillotining of this Bill, but no one can deny that EEC matters are regularly rushed through this House.
We are debating a matter of considerable importance—certainly it will be in the future—but we have this minor debate without the benefit of the Government's legal advice. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke about our discussing important regulations at a late hour. I remind him that we spent only an hour and a quarter last night on some tremendously important transport legislation which the European Assembly had discussed 14 months ago. The committee of which I am chairman spent more hours than the House of Commons spent minutes discussing it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about the need for the House to improve its scrutiny ability. To say that is to condemn the Treasury Bench. But I suspect that it will be a condemnation of the hon. Gentlement's own Front-Bench Members if ever we are unfortunate enough to have them in office. But I agree about the need to improve the scrutiny arrangements, although I hardly think that that should be followed through to where a directly elected Assembly starts to do the job for us.
I have heard some hon. Members ask, once we have devolution and elected Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, perhaps even an elected English Assembly—there has been talk about that—and a directly elected European Parliament, what on earth there will be for the House of Commons to do. I have certainly read that point of view in some journals which seem to favour a particular course. In the general question of scrutiny I would hope that this point would be noted.
If we are to do the job properly, even after the directly elected Assembly is in existence, we must have proper scrutiny procedures. Once the European Assembly is directly elected, that body will undoubtedly seek to increase its powers. One only has to look at parish, district and county councils and listen to these politicians arguing about powers that they should or should not have to realise that once the Assembly is set up in Strasbourg or Luxembourg, the Members will argue very strongly for rights in certain areas where they think that they should be the dominant body on Community legislation.
It is important to realise—and too many hon. Members overlook this point—that at present there is a link between Members of this House and the Members of the European Assembly. This is an extremely important link which we shall lose once we have direct elections. While it is true that one can do two part-time jobs—although one might be tired, distressed, and have difficulties, it can be done—physically one cannot do two full-time jobs.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Member may think that I am being rough on him, but would he also agree that because the British delegation has to treat this as a

part-time job, that inevitably stops that delegation, to some extent, from increasing the powers of the Assembly, because it cannot physically do any more?

Mr. Evans: The point I was trying to make was that the link remains between Members of the House of Commons and Members of the European Assembly. Members of the European Assembly are all aware of the national problems and the background against which they are debating an issue. Members of the British delegation may not agree with each other, but they are well aware of certain economic facts and the problems facing our Government. After direct elections we shall have rather strange characters serving in Europe who will not take any cognisance of the problems of Government and the situation in the House of Commons. There will be an entirely different attitude. It is important that the link we have now is maintained.
One of the strange things about the Assembly is—and here the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) will agree with me—the way in which the Italians stand shoulder to shoulder on Italian issues and the Germans on German issues. They are defending their countries' interests because they are Members of their national Parliaments and are aware of the problems of their national Governments. After direct elections we shall have 410 Members from all over the place representing points of view that do not take into account the problems of their Governments.

Mr. Dykes: Why should that happen? Is it not more likely that a trilogy of contacts will develop? Is it not likely that we shall have Select Committees from the House of Commons taking evidence from visiting European parliamentarians on matters of policy, party groups meeting here and there, and the directly elected Members meeting Members of this House, irrespective of party, in the European constituency? Is it not logical that things will develop for the good of the citizen, rather than there being the conflict that the hon. Member envisages?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member paints an interesting picture. Although I have been a Member of the European Parliament for two and a half ears, and the


Chairman of the Regional Policy Committee for two years, I have not noticed anyone in this House rushing to ask me my views on certain aspects of policy. It could be that this is my fault. However, I have not noticed the Speaker giving me any special privileges to speak on matters of which I have special knowledge. It may be that in the future when we have the directly elected Assembly these special provisions will be made, but I very much doubt it. All my experience indicates that hon. Members both from my party and the Opposition seem to take very little interest in what we do over there until it is too late. Then they protest about the way policies are going in Europe.

11 p.m.

Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) says that hon. Members pay little attention to what is done in the European Parliament. My memory may be in error but a year or 18 months ago, when the Select Committee was examining the Regional Fund with the Lords Select Committee, he was invited to appear before us, and he gave some useful evidence.

Mr. Evans: On one occasion I received an invitation and attended. But I believe that I am the only hon. Member to give evidence to such a ommittee. Perhaps that was the exception that proves the rule. In the two and a half years that the Labour delegation has been attending the Asssembly and in the five years that the Conservative delegation has been attending the House of Commons has shown little interest until it is too late and the die is cast.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I respect the authority of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) as a member of the Regional Policy Committee. I pay tribute to him. Does he not see a difficulty in the continuation of the dual mandate, bearing in mind that only two or three days a month are involved that difficulties are caused by travelling and that bad weather can cause delays?
Does he see why we should lose all these working days just because of the problems of travel? Is he suggesting that everyone should come to London? That would create a problem for me.

Mr. Evans: I take the hon. Member's point. I come from the North-West of England. My constituency has more electors than any other in Great Britain. I deal with seven local authorities, including a new town. I carry as much of a burden as anyone else. This depends on the individual. I cannot say what others regard as reasonable. I can give only by own view. I should like to see the present situation continued. It would be better if the Assembly continued operating as it does until the Community establishes itself in a way that requires a directly elected Parliament.
The only arguments one hears in favour of direct elections involve a loose use of the word "democracy." What is meant by that word? If they examine their consciences, hon. Members will agree that pressure for direct elections conies from the Commission—not only from the Commissioners but from those who comprise the bureaucracy in the Commission. They have a job to do and they do it to the best of their ability. But the Commission dislikes the Council of Ministers. The Council blocks progress on problems relating to member States. For example, 67 transport items are blocked in the Council. The Transport Commission is appalled by this lack of progress. National Ministers are well aware of the problems and that is why they are blocked. They are blocked not because Ministers want to keep them there but because of the political difficulties.
Members of Parliament who are aware of the difficulties in that situation then recognise the difficulties facing the Council of Ministers. But directly elected Members who are unaware of the problems in this House will naturally do what the Commission wants—they will join the Commission in making representations against the Council and ignore all the argument. In speech after speech the Commissioners complain that their power has somewhat declined in the past two or three years—since the Labour Government came to power—and they resent that. They want their power back. They have the power to make representations, but they want the power to make decisions.

Mr. David Stoddart: In my hon. Friend's view, does this tie up with the remarks that are being made by


various Commissioners about the powers of the European Parliament? Let me give him an example. Commissioner Tugendhat in a recent speech said that once we had direct elections there would have to be a shift of power so that the Council of Ministers would have to be made corporately responsible to the new directly elected European Assembly. That is a very serious remark.

Mr. Evans: That obviously ties up with my experience. My hon. Friend endorses my point. Hon. Members who attend the European Parliament as frequently as I do will know first hand how frequently Commissioners and directors-general indicate that they want to use the Parliament to legitimise their power to make decisions.
There has been discussion tonight about the budget, but to what areas can the Assembly look for an extension of its power to alter the Treaty? I believe that the new clause gives us powers which in theory we already have. All of us, irrespective of our views on the Common Market, have to recognise what will happen both here and in the Assembly in the future.
The new Commission was appointed in January last year. There was some argument about some of the Commissioners. It appeared that the new President of the Commission was not happy with one or two of them and had made representations to certain member Governments. Many members of the political groups took up the argument. Their valid point of view was that they should have the right to ask a Commissioner to appear before them and to veto him. Some members of the Assembly were more far sighted. They did not want to stir up that hornets' nest before direct elections had been secured. It might be suggested that the Council of Ministers would veto such an idea, but that would not stop the Assembly from proceeding to a vote. What would be the position of a Commissioner with a negative vote?
Another point concerns the siting of the Parliament. The Council of Ministers is supposed to take that decision, but if there is a directly elected Assembly, do hon. Members think that the ridiculous farce whereby the Assembly travels from Strasbourg to Brussels to Luxem

bourg and back to Strasbourg and Brussels again will be allowed to continue? The Council of Ministers will take a decision. Luxembourg is to build a new Assembly building. I suspect that once the Assembly is directly elected, it will decide to sit permanently in that building. Who is to stop it? The Council of Ministers?

Mr. Marten: The Luxembourgers are to charge a rent of £6 million a year for that building. Who will decide whether that £6 million is paid? I suspect that it will be the directly elected Assembly.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is plainly correct. Let us look at it from the Luxembourgers' point of view. Their position is clear. The present building there will not house a directly elected Assembly of 410 members, so they are to build a new centre, knowing that it will have to be used. It is not really a speculative venture for them, but an investment. I sometimes wish that this country was a little more thoughtful on some issues as some other European countries are. They seem to look after their interests sometimes a little better than we do ours.
There are other areas in which the Assembly, without altering the Treaty, can extend its powers. For example, there is environmental policy. The Assembly says now that it can oversee vast areas in a member country. There is logic in that. Again, it claims that it can take measures regarding consumer protection, regional policy and the Social Fund. In these areas the Assembly already recognises the powers at its disposal.
About 75 per cent. of the Community's budget goes into agriculture, and a large percentage of that allocation is taken up with the EAGGF Fund. There is a strong argument now that a large section of that fund should be transferred into the Regional Fund, which would move a substantial tranche out of agriculture, which is compulsory, into the Regional Fund, which is not.
These are the areas in which a directly elected assembly can operate. But once it goes into these things, that will further weaken the hold that this House has on taxation and general financial requisitions. The whole question of whether the Commission gets that power is the key to the argument.
The Commission wants to break the power of the Council of Ministers. There has been considerable discussion about abolishing the power of veto and having a qualified voting system. There has been an instance of qualified voting—it applied to the transport regulations; they were passed by qualified majority. The Assembly recognises that lessening the powers of veto strengthens the power of the Assembly. But it also strengthens the power of the Commission. The argument about New Clause 8 is rather sterile in this respect.
It might be legitimate to say that the Assembly's powers should be widened and increased, but as a House representing the British people we want to know how it will extend its powers, why, and who will benefit. At the end of the day, all politicians are elected by the people. This House manages to divide arguments up—for example, if one has the anti-Market tag one can see nothing good coming out of Brussels. But the issues are real and important, and in future, particularly after direct elections, it will be vital to the British people that this House should do its proper job in facing up to these great issues.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I begin by commiserating with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who, I understood him to say, has been removed this evening from the Socialist delegation to the European Parliament. I have never agreed with his overall views on the Community, and many of the opinions that he finds deplorable, such as those of Commissioner Tugendhat, are those with which I agree.
However, I have always appreciated the hon. Gentleman's contributions in European matters and I have taken part in debates in which the views of the hon. Gentleman—as chairman of the Regional Committee—have been extremely useful. I take from his removal the comfort that at least the selections of Members of the Assembly will be considerably improved once we move to direct elections, because the system adopted by the Parliamentary Labour Party is evidently a little perverse.
I agree with much of the analysis of the hon. Member for Newton and of the anti-Marketeers who have spoken. My opinions on the merits of the Bill are

diametrically opposed to theirs, but we are not discussing a great and weighty constitutional change which satisfies all the objections of those who oppose the Bill and are fearful of the growth of the power of the European Parliament.
The Foreign Secretary had difficulty keeping a straight face during parts of his speech, particularly when he was pressed on certain details. It was clear that he had taken the view—rightly, in my opinion—that the new clause did not justify his breaking away from important matters such as Rhodesia to do any precise study of the clause.
We are dealing with a piece of political nonsense which is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. The new clause is being presented because of an undertaking given by the Foreign Secretary, when he wandered into our first day's debate in Committee, to try to satisfy those who are opposed to the main objectives of the Bill. He rashly believed that the undertaking would satisfy hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and that the Government might therefore be able to get the Bill through without a timetable motion. I am a fierce supporter of the Bill, and I took the view from the start that there was no chance of getting it through in the face of the opposition of those Members and others without a guillotine, and I ultimately supported the Government on the timetable motion.
The undertaking got the Foreign Secretary nowhere, but it presented him and his Department with the tremendous problem of drafting a new clause which at least looked respectable so that they could go through the motions of putting that draft commitment into effect.
I pointed out that the commitment, which was so lightly given, was completely out of order as the Bill stood. and the Chairman ruled that it was outside the scope of the Bill as drafted. It took the Foreign Office seven weeks to draft the amendments—I see that the Foreign Secretary is again having difficulty keeping a straight face and is nodding and I doubt whether that is because of the inaccuracy of what I am saying. Amendments had to be produced to change the Long Title and alter the scope of the


Bill, and there must have been a fearful problem in producing a text of the new clause that had any meaning, while the attempt to produce a new clause that matched the wording of the commitment had to be abandoned.
It proved impossible to express in words which would be legally enforceable a new clause which was confined to increases in the power of the European Parliament which encroached on the power of Westminster. The opponents of the Bill are correct in describing the new clause as futile. We shall see a growth in the powers of the European Parliament regardless of the new clause.
What I am saying is that I want a growth in the powers of the European Parliament. I do not mind if it is a growth in its powers at the expense of Westminster if it is a growth of its powers with a view to increasing European union, which I believe is overwhelmingly in the interests of the United Kingdom. What I do not think the clause will stop is an increase in the powers of the European Parliament as a consequence of the Bill, but I am still hostile to the clause because I think that it will be a nuisance. It will lead to unnecessary legislation and unnecessary legal wrangles and arguments about precisely what is its effect at various stages in the increase of the European Parliament's powers.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In his Euromania, would my hon. Friend also argue that the directly elected Assembly will democratise the European situation? Does he believe that the Members, representing 500,000 people, can be as closely in touch with the needs, worries and interests of the people of this country as someone representing 80,000 people, as in the House of Commons?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not be drawn too far out of order. I dealt with some of these matters in an earlier debate. Members of the United States Senate have no difficulty in representing huge constituencies more effectively and democratically than we can represent our constituencies in the House of Commons.
I also think that it is a valuable contribution to democracy in Europe to have a body to which the Council of Ministers is responsible for the great legislative powers that it already has, which have

already been taken away from the House of Commons. We fool ourselves if we think that we can take those powers back to ourselves.
I do not think that many more formal increases in the European Parliament's powers are necessary. I accept the analysis of many hon. Members who have spoken that it has what it wants by way of legal powers already. Direct elections simply enable it to build on its embryonic powers and develop them by convention and usage, as the House of Commons did in the past.
The major change that had to be made was to extend the European Parliament's budgetary powers. That has already been done by an amendment to the Treaty which the House of Commons has already approved. I find it astonishing that the Government are suddenly saying with the new clause that any amendment to the Treaties, any new increase of powers by treaty, is to be made by Act of Parliament. That is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The budgetary powers were changed by treaty on 22nd July 1975, and that change was approved by the House of Commons on 8th December 1975 under a definition of treaties order. It may well be that the powers are not being used to their full extent now, though on the whole I agree with hon. Members who say that this year's reaction of the Council of Ministers to the Parliament has been significant. The budgetary powers that the Parliament has under that amended treaty are sufficient for it to have control of the purse strings and steadily acquire more political control over the Council of Ministers.
The one formal change that I foresee is an increase in the Parliament's legislative powers, where it is particularly weak now. That will come about fairly shortly when it becomes the practice that no directly applicable regulations shall be enacted by the Council of Ministers without the support of an affirmative vote of the Parliament. The House of Commons has no powers over Council of Ministers regulations which are directly applicable, so that would not affect the House. But it would make the Council of Ministers answerable to a democratically elected body if it became a convention that those regulations would not become binding on any member State until the European


Parliament had passed a resolution to that effect.
That brings me to the effect of the Foreign Secretary's undertaking and the new clause on the existing powers and any small increases that might still be needed. The clause does not match the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, given on 1st December last year, when, speaking of the new clause, he said:
The clause will ensure that no extension of the powers of the European Assembly which would encroach on the legislative powers of this House can be agreed by the Government without an authorising Act of Parliament."—[Official Report, 1st December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 820.]
The new clause does not match that undertaking in two important respects that are in two opposite directions. First, the clause is no longer confined to those matters
which would encroach on the legislative powers of this House".
As I have said, I am sure that it proved quite impossible to produce a satisfactory definition of precisely what increases in powers would fall upon the House, but it means that there will be some increases in powers caught by the clause that have no consequence whatever for the House of Commons—for example, increases in powers that flow from improvements in procedure within the European Parliament. Is it argued that they come under the new clause? There could be trivial increases in the powers of the European Parliament that would have no bearing on the House of Commons, but according to the new clause they will require an Act of Parliament before we are able to ratify whatever agreements relate to them.
On the other hand, increases may be made in the powers of the European Parliament not by treaty, and they will not be caught by the House of Commons. We can have a major increase of power which, for example, takes away substantial powers from the House of Commons, but because it is not made by treaty or international agreement, as defined in the new clause, we will have no control over it. Great increases in powers could come about without a treaty or agreement.
I cite, but I do not seek to emulate, the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South when he expounded on the way in which Parliaments increase

their powers by convention and understanding and not by formal resolution. Increases in power are obtained by convention and political struggle, and that is largely how the European Parliament will acquire its powers.
There may be an increase in power by agreement that is not an international agreement or a treaty within the terms of the new clause.

Mr. Jay: We do not know yet.

Mr. Clarke: I hear the intervention of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I agree that we do not know yet, and we want an answer.
The most important agreement of all would be between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, or an agreement between the European Commission on the one part and the European Parliament on the other. Such an agreement would provide the largest potential increase in the powers of the European Parliament. If the Council of Ministers of its own volition were to agree that it would not enact any regulations unless the European Parliament had first voted in agreement, that would be an agreement between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament amounting to a massive increase in legislative power.
I believe that the Foreign Secretary said—I speak from recollection—that he does not think that an agreement between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament falls within the definition of New Clause 1. If that is so, New Clause 1 is the biggest piece of unnecessary nonsense that we have been asked to write into a major constitutional measure for a long time.

Mr. Roper: In reply to my intervention my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that that was his view. Clearly, an institutional agreement is by definition not an international agreement. If there is an agreement between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, that is between two institutions, two international institutions. It is not an agreement between nations. It seems that such an agreement is inevitably excluded.

Mr. Clarke: That is my tentative view as well. I await the Minister's reply. An


international agreement seems to me to be an agreement between nation States and seems to have no other meaning. If that is so, we are confined to the international agreements that happen to be made by the nine member States as opposed to any agreements made between the institutions in Europe.
11.30 p.m.
I shall outline briefly some further matters arising from the new clause which illustrate the silliness of the clause, unless the Minister can adequately reply to them. First, there is the fact that the special proviso is being applied only to changes in the Treaty increasing the powers of the European Parliament. It is extraordinary. I am accused of being a Euro-maniac. I am a keen supporter of the Community, but if one is against it, there are more worrying aspects of possible change than the powers of the Parliament. If the Foreign Secretary wishes to reassure the unreassurable collection of people in the House who object to our membership, it is strange to throw out as a sop proposals which may only change the role of the Parliament. Massive changes in the relationship between the Council of Ministers and this country or the Commission and this country, and, for example, extensions of the Treaty into defence, in which I would be interested, could still be approved under the European Communities Act 1972 by a definition of treaties order.
The fears of the right hon. Members for Battersea, North and Down, South and of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about the growth of the Community are not being safeguarded in the slightest.

Mr. Marten: I understood my hon. Friend to say that he would like defence matters to be brought within the Treaty. That would require an amendment of the Treaty of Rome which would come within the purview of this new clause.

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that it would. To amend the Treaty to include defence would not necessarily involve an increase in the powers of the European Parliament. An amendment of that kind would be subject to Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. My hon. Friend would regard that amend

ment as much more significant. But, I am glad to say, the Government offer no safeguard on that. They are offering a safeguard on what could be a footling change—it might be an important one—in the powers of the European Parliament.
Then there is the question of what an increase in powers means. It can imply a value judgment about whether a change in procedure is an increase in powers or a diminution in powers. The European Parliament has the power, by a two-thirds majority, to dismiss the entire Commission. It sounds a big, dramatic power. The main criticism of it is that it is too big a weapon which can never be used.
Let us suppose that by agreement a change were made to the effect that in future the Parliament would have only the power to dismiss by a two-thirds majority an individual Commissioner. Would that be an increase in powers, as most people applying a political value judgment would say, or would it be a diminution of powers as formally interpreted perhaps by a court, whether English or European? None of us doubts that politically it would be an increase in power, but, as a constitution and legal point, that is the sort of loose end that the new clause leaves behind.
What would happen if a change were made by international agreement which was put into practice regardless of the fact that the House of Commons refused to ratify the agreement because it was bogged down in considering, say, Lords amendments to the legislation? This is not an unreal point because it has happened in respect of the most significant amendment yet made to the Treaty in this area, namely, that which changed the budgetary powers. I repeat that it was not ratified by all member States' Parliaments until March 1977. The Community did not wait for member States' Parliaments to ratify it. It put the new procedures into practice in 1976.
Let us suppose that that happened again and the new clause was in operation before that happened. What would we do? What would be the consequences of the fact that the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission were all acting as though the


Treaty were in force and nobody was taking any notice of the fact that the Secretary of State was arguing here about whether it should come into effect?
Some of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, argued earlier that any action taken in that regard would be ultra vires. I accept that that might be so if such action resulted in taxes being levied or changes in the law being made that in some way were without agreement. But an increase in powers might not have such effects. It might be an increase in powers which resulted in the Council of Ministers no longer taking decisions without the approval of the European Parliament. It might, in effect, be a convention—an agreement to allow the European Parliament to have an extra hand in matters. The Council of Ministers would still do what was required of it by law in this country. It would put a regulation into practice using its powers under the Rome Treaty, but it would decide to abide by an amending treaty and wait until the European Parliament gave it the say-so. Our domestic law would be satisfied. We would go through the idle process of wrangling whether to ratify the Treaty, but all the institutions of the European Community would ignore this ridiculous legislative process.
The Foreign Secretary said that he found no gratitude in the Committee for the new clause. I suggest that he could not have expected gratitude from me, because I made it clear throughout that I did not want this undertaking and did not want him to table the new clause. Given that he has no gratitude today from any of the anti-Marketeers to whom he is offering the new clause, given that he is unable to answer any of the technical and legal matters that arise from it and given that it would be fairly startling to me if the Minister of State could answer any of these questions—I do not criticise him, because this is an ill-thought-out nonsense to which he cannot give adequate replies—can we not all agree that the whole matter arises from a little mistake and a rather naive view of what was necessary to get European legislation through? If so, why does not the Minister say "We thought we could do it, we were trying to be helpful, but,

having taken advice, we find that it cannot be done for many reasons"?
The clear majority of the House of Commons in 1972 took steps which show all this to be water under the bridge. We had all the crucial arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament when we debated Clause 2(1) of the European Communities Bill in 1972. I recall that I was PPS to the then Minister and was therefore present but silent in the debates that took place on these great constitutional matters in 1972.
Pro-Marketeers did not shed political sweat and tears on that occasion to have half of it thrown away by silly undertakings given by the Foreign Secretary on a stray afternoon. I hope that the Minister will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Minister of State was asked by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), for legal aid. I had no sympathy with the campaign that was mounted about an hour ago, particularly as it came from the hon. Member for Guildford, who voted for and asked his hon. Friends to vote for the guillotine. Now he brazenly asks for more time so that a Law Officer can be brought here. If he had not supported the guillotine, we should have had several days more and ample opportunity to get the Law Officers to come and give us their advice. The hon. Gentleman has no right or standing. Hon. Members should not join forces with him when he makes such political remarks.

Mr. David Howell: Let me point out, in response to that personal attack, that I asked not for more time but for more explanation. There is nothing unreasonable in that.

Mr. Mendelson: That is a hypocritical explanation. If the hon. Gentleman wants Law Officers to be present, he should have voted to give them time to be here. He is no more entitled to take a stand on that matter than he was on the subjects in the main debate.
I have no sympathy either with the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). His friendship should warn the Government that they should beware of false friends. With such


friends, they do not need critics or enemies. They are welcome to them.
The real purpose behind this debate was not the ludicrous purpose which was alleged by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. The real purpose was declared by the Government to Parliament and the country—namely, that the Government do not wish the powers of the Assembly to be extended.
The origin of the new clause—I was the first Member to demand the introduction of such a clause—was primarily the decision of the French Parliament and the French Prime Minister, who introduced a provision in the first place which was much more comprehensive. The real difficulty that we have reached has nothing to do with law. It has to do with the deliberate desire of the Government not to agree to the request made to them on political grounds. Some Opposition Members who agree with the Government have no right to shield behind a hypocritical stance.
My argument is that the Government have not responded to our request. It is not a question of the Government merely tabling a form of words but a question of their concluding that they do not want to do what was asked of them.
Because the French Prime Minister, M. Bane, knew that he could not get the law through the French Assembly, he tabled the provision before the debate started rather than, as our Government have done, in the debate. He wanted to assure the Parliament of France that, although the European Parliament might be directly elected if the legislation were passed, the French Government were opposed to the extension of some of the powers of a directly elected Assembly.
We have not had that assurance from the British Government, and it is what we need from them. All the rest is nonsense. The assurance sought was not a matter of words. Our Government obviously concluded that they did not want to give that assurance. They hid behind the allegation that legally it was impossible to give assurances because we do not have a legal constitution as the French people have.
This is a subterfuge. It is on all fours with the head of the family who is beseeched by his wife to take her and the

family on a holiday to the Bahamas, who himself does not want to go and who takes them instead to Bognor Regis. The Government have not acceded to our request. But this debate does not conclude the argument. We shall take it to the people of the country. History will show that the Government do not need the support of the harlequins on the Opposition Benches to help their case.

Mr. Judd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) for his brevity. I know that he wanted to say more than he was able to say in the time allowed to him.
We greatly value my hon. Friend's experience in these matters, and f hope that I can do justice to the one point he made by emphasising that he underlined the fact that there are safeguards beyond what we are doing in Committee tonight in respect of a possible extension of the powers of the Assembly. Extension of those powers will require the endorsement of the Assemblies of all member countries. If my hon. Friend says that the French have better safeguards, the French will be able to act as a brake in this respect as well.
I shall deal as rapidly as possible with the points which have been made in this discussion because they deserve comment and answer. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke of the status of agreements between the Council of Ministers and the Assembly. He was right to say that these would not have the status of a treaty or international agreement. A treaty is an agreement between States, but an agreement between the Council of Ministers and the Assembly would not alter the powers of the Assembly. We have only to refer to Articles 4 and 236 of the Treaty to see this point. It is true that the clause cannot control the matter of greater deference—I accept this point—should the Council or Commission decide to show greater deference towards the Assembly. That cannot be disputed.
11.45 p.m.
Another point raised by several hon. Members is the significance of the word "treaty" and the term "international agreement". The fact that both of those phrases have been used in the new clause is an indication of the Government's determination to have both belt and braces


in this respect. One has only to refer to the definitions contained in the Vienna Convention to see that point illustrated, because a treaty is now understood by that convention to be any agreement between sovereign States under international law, and an international agreement is understood to be any agreement between sovereign States, again under international law. Therefore, by using both phrases we hope that the point is well protected.
There is only a short time available for me. I apologise for that, but I wanted a large number of hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak.
My last point brings me to the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon referred in an intervention to what Commissioner Tugendhat had said, and he talked about the position of the directly elected Assembly and the position of the Council of Ministers. In quoting the Commissioner my hon. Friend spoke of the fact that we should see a situation developing in which increasingly the powers of the Assembly would be increased at the expense of the powers of the Council of Ministers.
The point I wish to make—I shall return to it again—is that that could, of course, happen. That cannot be disputed. But, if it is not to happen, a tremendous amount will depend upon the vigour and determination of Members of the House of Commons and of other Assemblies in the Community. It is ultimately Members of the House of Commons and of other similar Assemblies who must hold their Ministers to account for what they do in the Council of Ministers. The degree to which they hold their Ministers accountable will determine whether they retain their power concentrated in the Council of Ministers.
I have been listening to the debate on this subject not only tonight but on several occasions. I hope that no one will take offence at what I am about to say, because it is not meant to give offence I have sometimes been a little intrigued by what I can only describe as a certain lack of confidence in the House of Commons about its future role; that somehow, when the directly elected Assembly comes into being, we in this place will suddenly fall away and lose our commit

ment and vigour. I should have thought that, if the debates in this Chamber have demonstrated anything, they have demonstrated the vim and vigour of the House of Commons at its best in fighting to preserve its rights. I am sure that that is something that will continue and will lead Ministers in the Council of Ministers to have to remember that they are directly accountable to their home Parliaments and Assemblies and, therefore, to retained power in that setting.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The green pound.

Mr. Judd: With respect, that is a very good illustration.
I now come to a point raised by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. He asked why the provisions of the 1975 budgetary Treaty were implemented in 1976 before the Treaty came into effect in March 1977, on completion of ratification by all member States. In the time available tonight, I have delved into the history of this matter. It seems that what happened was that the provisions of the Treaty were implemented only when the Treaty came into force in 1977, though it is true that the Assembly was urging the Council to implement the provisions in 1976 in advance of ratification. The House of Commons approved the treaty in the Section 1(3) debate on 8th December 1975, and the United Kingdom was the first to ratify the Treaty, in April 1976.

Mr. Spearing: It was not on the Order Paper, though, was it?

Mr. Judd: That brings me to what I believe has been a central part of this debate. Many important technical and legal points have been made—I shall come back in a moment to Article 235—but, as has happened on several occasions when the House has been debating this issue, inevitably attention began to focus on the real meat of it. This was brought out in, for example, speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). A contrary view was well brought out in the remarks by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.
The meat of the argument was that, although hon. Members are concerned about the constitutional safeguards and niceties, they are more concerned with the political reality. They ask what will happen when these directly elected representatives go to the Assembly and start to work there with the confidence of having been constitutionally directly elected and begin to build up their experience, using more fully than in the past the powers which are already established, let alone acquiring any new powers. It is right that the Committee should be reminded of this concern.
This brings me back to the point that what in the end will guarantee that the balance is preserved, and what in the end will guarantee that the profoundly important rights and significance of the House of Commons are not undermined, can only be the determination, the commitment and the quality of the Members of the House.
In the Second Reading debate I put a question to colleagues on the Government side and to Opposition Members, and I put it again tonight. It was that—

Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I noted what he said about the quality and determination of Members of the House of Commons. There is no doubt, as I am sure he will agree, that on the Back Benches there are men of infinite quality and determination. Unfortunately, there are also many Members who, when they get into the Government or into the Shadow Cabinet, forget what they have learned on the Back Benches and are prepared to be browbeaten by the Whips, if I may put it that way, into voting against their own convinced views and against their own consciences. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Judd: As for the browbeating of right hon. and hon. Members by Whips, no one is better qualified than my hon. Friend to speak on this, with all his years of experience as a Whip. But that in the end is a matter which can be resolved only by right hon and hon. Members themselves.
The point I wish to emphasise again is that, as we see it in the Government, it is clear, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, that there is no endorsement, in

anything for which we are calling in the context of the Bill, of the principle of federalism. We have quite specifically rejected the concept of federalism in the context of the European Economic Community. We in the Government believe very deeply that it is through the Council of Ministers that the co-ordinating powers of policy-making within the Community should be exercised and that the Ministers, the Members of that Council, must be accountable to the representatives of their own people in their own Parliaments and Assemblies. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Before I conclude I should like to revert to Article 235, because it was quite clear that the explanation I gave earlier this evening did not altogether satisfy right hon. and hon. Members on either side. Article 235 states:
If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Asembly, take the appropriate measures.
In so far as the objectives of the Community are spelt out in the Treaty, they are included in Articles 2 and 3. But, if we then look forward to Article 4 we see that it provides that
The tasks entrusted to the Community shall be carried out by the following institutions: as Assembly, a Council, a Commission and a Court of Justice. Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty.
Therefore, if the Assembly is to change its way of acting and expand its powers, this can be done only by altering the Treaty, and that brings us back to Article 236.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that Article 235 permits the Council, acting unanimously, to increase the ambit if its powers and that, in so far as it does that, the Commission's power to initiate is as wide as that of the Assembly's power to criticise, to comment and to act as an advisory body?

Mr. Judd: There is no point in trying to pretend that the clause is other than what it is. It deals specifically with the powers of the Assembly. The influence of the Assembly is a different issue, and I have just described as honestly as I can


how I believe the balance can be maintained in that respect. I believe that it will be maintained in the long run only by the determination of hon. Members of the House and similar Assemblies throughout the Community.
I must now deal with the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). It is part of his consistent and passionate criticism over many years of the EEC Treaties which, in his view, bestow on the European Court of Justice jurisdiction regarding the meaning or effect of the basic EEC Treaties.
Acceptance of these Treaty provisions is, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, a fundamental aspect of Community membership. He may not like Community membership—he may be against it—but it is a fundamental aspect of Community membership. Despite my hon. Friend's challenging reference to the European Community's right to interpret the provisions of the basic European Community Treaties, I believe genuinely that the anxieties which he expressed about the clause in its present form are ill founded.
It is most unlikely that the clause will give rise to legal disputes. It is simple and precise. I do not foresee difficulty for this Government or for a successor Government in interpreting it. To disregard it would be a flagrant breach of a legislative provision binding on the Crown. In the unlikely event that there were any question about whether a Community Treaty required the prior approval of Parliament under the clause, proceedings could be brought in our own courts to prevent Ministers proceeding to ratification or to obtain a declaration that a

Treaty which had already been ratified was not binding on the United Kingdom. Our courts would have jurisdiction to determine such proceedings. There would be no appeal as such from a decision in our courts to the European Court of Justice or any court outside the United Kingdom.

However, it is conceivable, though very unlikely, that during the course of such proceedings in a United Kingdom court a question of interpretation might arise about whether a particular Treaty increased the powers of the European Assembly. In such an event, a United Kingdom court could, if it considered a decision on the matter necessary to enable it to give judgment, refer it to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling as to interpretation of a particular Treaty. A court of last resort, such as the House of Lords in United Kingdom law, would be obliged to refer the matter to the European Court for a preliminary ruling on interpretation if it considered a decision on that matter necessary to give a judgment.

Mr. Spearing: That was not on the Order Paper, was it?

Mr. Judd: We cannot alter the position, as this would be in breach of the existing provisions of the Treaty of Rome—

It being Midnight, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [26th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 101. Noes 7.

Division No. 96]
AYES
[12 midnight


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Bates, Alf
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Body, Richard
George, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney [...])
Gilbert, Or John
Lee, John


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan
Le Merchant, Spencer


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Graham, Ted
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)
Luard, Evan


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Dell, Rt [...] Edmund
Horam, John
Madden, Max


Dormand, J. D.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hurd, Douglas
Marten, Neil


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


English, Michael
John, Brynmor
Mayhew, Patrick


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Judd, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert




Mendelson, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson Neville
Tinn, James


Moyle, Roland
Sever, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Viggers, Peter


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Noble, Mike
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael


Ogden, Eric
Snape, Peter
Watkinson, John


Owen, Rt Hon Or David
Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Percival, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stoddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley



Richardson, Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roper, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. Thomas Cox




NOES


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Newton, Tony
Mr. Hugh Dykes and


Rhodes, James R.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Midnight.

Clause added to the Bill.

It being after Midnight, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [26th January.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Motion made,
That the Resolution of the House of 20th March 1975 shall have effect from 1st January 1978 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:
`That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£550 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1.10 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £165,000.' [Mr. Snape.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SERVICE MEN'S FAMILIES (REGISTRATION FOR VOTING)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: My purpose is to raise the issue of registration for voting purposes by Service men and their families, and in this connection the spouse of the Service man or woman is the relevant factor. I shall talk about Service men and their wives for convenience.
Frequent moves including overseas service have created special problems for Service families in voting and attempts have been made over the years to improve the position. When last considered by the Speaker's Conference in 1973, voting by Service personnel had fallen to 25 per cent. of those eligible. This was a serious situation and the Conference decided that something should be done about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) introduced a Private Member's Bill incorporating provisions about Service men and their wives agreed by the Speaker's Conference. It became the Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976. By this Act all Service men and wives for the first time had the right to register as Service voters on the basis of one registration lasting for the whole of the Service career.
But the Act went further than giving the right. It provided that Service men and their wives had to register as Service personnel, failing which they would lose


their votes. They were not eligible to be included as civilians on the normal form of registration for voting. A special Service voting form has to be attested by the appropriate person, which includes an officer or non-commissioned officer of sergeant or above, Government official, and so on.
I maintain that the Act has backfired very seriously. I congratulate those who introduced it originally, but defects in the drafting have become apparent. The Act, which was intended to help Service personnel, has aroused fury and bitterness for a number of reasons. First, a wife has to rely upon a husband to provide the special Service form. I am aware that Service establishments have sought to post forms to wives, but the wife still has to rely upon her husband for it. The husband might be away from home on overseas service, or he might be separated or divorced from his wife.
The wife needs to have the form attested. She cannot go through a standard procedure. She needs actually to attest the form and this must worry some people who do not like Government forms. There are some 2 million people in this country who are illiterate or virtually illiterate and do not like Government forms. To them this extra procedure is a disincentive to register for voting.
Then there is the point that when registration eventually takes place the letter "S" is put against the name of the individual showing that he is a Service voter. Many Service wives object to this. Their objection is based on the fact that wives regard themselves as civilians.
I want to quote from some of the very large number of letters I have received on the subject. All of them were unprompted. I am aware of no concerted campaign. They are from individual people expressing their opinions. One correspondent writes:
Many of us object most strongly to being referred to as a 'Service-man's wife'—or husband—as we would object to being listed as a dustman's wife, solicitor's wife, etc.—we are people in our own right—my husband would not appreciate it if he were classed as a `Secretary's husband'. Civilians do not have to declare their husband's occupation before being placed on the Electoral Roll—why then should we be discriminated against in this way?

Another letter says:
This week I have received my form for the electoral register. I find that I am no longer a citizen of Gosport. I am now part of my husband's goods and chattels, for him to decide if I should cast a vote or not.
Although I have lived here for 14 years (and voted since I was 21) I am also a householder and ratepayer, I still have to wait for my husband to bring home a form that also has to be signed by an attestor.
I am disgusted about this, and until my husband comes out of the Army my vote will be lost. If I can not be treated like a normal human being then I won't act like one.
Yet another letter reads:
I am a householder and have paid my rates in this town for six years and have always filled in the Register of Electors form and cannot see why I should not carry on in this manner. I am not a Service personnel; I am a civilian and wish to remain that way.
Another letter says:
It is outrageous that, in 1977, some women have to obtain the right to vote through their husbands.
My final quotation is:
I am not a Service voter and I shall never vote in such a capacity. I am a civilian and I demand my right to continue to vote as such. As a civilian I have no need to have someone attest my signature on the registration form; neither do I have to wait till my husband gives me the necessary service voters form. I have not seen any news of this form on the media, so I wonder how many wives in my position have no knowledge that their vote is about to be withdrawn simply because their husbands neglect to pass on the form.
In August last year, I took up the issue with the Minister of State, Home Office, and received a somewhat bland reply. I pressed the matter, and on 6th September 1977 I wrote to him:
There are substantial difficulties involved in the implementation of the present law and this needs to be put right quickly because wives are now being called upon to register as Service voters.
I asked for wives to be permitted to register as civilians if they wished. The hon. Gentleman replied on 22nd September:
It would, I fear, make the system excessively complex to allow persons with a service qualification the option of registering through the service system or through the Form A system.
Having discussed the matter in some detail with certain specialists in electoral procedure and law, I thing that it would be possible to allow the wives of Service men to register as civilians if they so wished. I maintain that it is necessary that action should be taken on this


basis because of the scandal now being revealed by the electoral roll. The electoral register of the constituency of Gosport, about which I know most, although it is not exceptional, which will be implemented on 16th February has revealed a voting list so defective as to make a mockery of our electoral system.
In my constituency there are estimated to be 15,000 Service men and wives, of whom about 5,000 have registered. That is 10,000 lost votes. In one ward alone, Rownen, with a high proportion of Service families, there was a check by staff of the electoral registration officer. Rownen has a rising population, with more houses under construction. But the new electoral roll shows a decrease of 1,600 voters, having fallen from 8,700 to 7,100.
In Rownen, 1,700 wives of Service men have been deleted from the roll, although a check shows that at least half of them are still living in the houses they were living in last year. In other words, names of people known to be living in houses there are being struck from the register.
I am aware that the Minister could say that the position before the 1976 Act was poor in that only 25 per cent. of Service men were voting. But that is not a valid argument, because the people whom we are comparing with the previous number are a different set of people. Previously we were dealing with Service men and Service families overseas. Now we have an increased number of people who must register as Service voters. For the first time, we are taking off the register people we know to be resident in a particular property and who wish to be registered as civilians.
The Minister may say that the wives could have registered and that any difficulties are their own fault. There are two arguments against that. First, I am sure that the wives did not know of the new procedure and that they lost their votes unwittingly. Secondly, I do not think it lies with us to dictate to people. We should make it easier for them to register rather than create an obstacle course for them. The fact that large numbers were not registering should have been known to the Minister and his staff.
Democracy is on trial in this issue. Relatively little may have been heard

about it so far, but it the next General Election is held before February 1979, there will be an explosion of rage from those who have been disfranchised. There are 10,000 such people in my constituency. I look at the constituencies of Plymouth, Devonport, where Labour has a majority of 2,259, and Portsmouth, North, where the Labour majority is 1,345, and I wonder how the regulations will affect the elections in those constituencies.
Since the Minister was put on notice that problems were emerging over the new registration for the Services, to what extent has his Department monitored the position in order to obtain warning of the coming crisis and to what extent did he consider what could be done about it? Will the hon. Gentleman, even now, bring forward as an emergency measure legislation drawing up a fresh electoral roll incorporating the spouses of Service personnel who wish to register as civilians? The Minister cannot simply regard this matter with indifference. He must act.

12.23 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for raising this matter. It is plainly one which causes him concern, and I was a member of the Speaker's Conference which examined the problem. I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who is present for the debate, was also a member of that Conference.
The hon. Member for Gosport has shown the dangers of extrapolating from a particular instance or difficulty into a general attack or tirade. I do not undervalue the hon. Gentleman's remarks or his concern for his constituents, but many of his comments illustrated one of the difficulties. Navy wives are in a different situation from most Service wives. Most Service wives move frequently and the expectation is that their lives will include a number of moves—though perhaps these are less frequent now that there are fewer stations and camps. Navy wives tend, because of the nature of their husbands' service, to congregate permanently in one district.
There is a difficulty in devising any electoral system that bears fairly on everyone. We have to devise a system


that does well by most of those it is supposed to help.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that in the aftermath of the 1969 Act, which did for spouses precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking for, there was a low registration among Service men—25 per cent. There was a dramatic drop in the number of Service men registered for electoral purposes. Clearly, that could not be allowed to continue.
To that Speaker's Conference the Ministry of Defence gave evidence in favour of a once-for-all registration system. The hon. Gentleman said that I had been put on notice. All I can say is that many people were put on notice. The noble Lady, Baroness Vickers, who handled the Bill in the other place, clearly stated the new system a year ago, so it was known that this change was taking place. There was no lobby against it when the Ministry gave evidence or during the passage of the Bill. No hon. Member was approached to raise the matter in Committee, nor was anything raised on Third Reading. I understand that that is not always possible, but in modern legislation there can be almost a difficulty for every solution, and I wonder whether that is what we have here.
The Bill was a Private Member's Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). Although most Private Member's Bills have all-party backing, it was, oddly, supported exclusively by Opposition Members. I was glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman drafting assistance, but in no sense was this a Government-inspired or forced move. If difficulties have arisen, it is through the best of motives. That must guide our consideration of the problem.
I should like to deal with the question of the principal effect of the 1976 Act, which was to replace annual registration by once-for-all registration for Service men and women and their wives and husbands. This once-for-all registration would be based upon a declaration which would last as long as the elector's Service qualification lasted.
It was believed that the change would work to the general satisfaction of the great majority of those affected. Because of the once-for-all nature of the new arrangements, the beneficial effect should

be cumulative, though, of course, in the aftermath of a changeover there will be a ripple. I hope that in a year's time the hon. Gentleman will find less cause for complaint about the Act's working than he does this year. It is too early to say definitely what has happened so far. The new electoral registers will not be published until this month.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend raised a most interesting point. I agree with the Minister that the change was made to benefit Service people, but will he make clear whether Service voters can be put on the register at any time of the year if they send the form of which my hon. Friend spoke? From the practical point of view, this is the only way in which they will be able to become registered in the current year. Otherwise, the register is made up, and for this year, which is in all probability election year, they will be disfranchised unless they can go through the Service procedure.

Mr. John: They can be registered at any time by filling in the form. I shall write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman about the matter, but I do not think that there is any great difficulty of that kind.

Mr. Viggers: rose—

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman has talked rather luridly about the effect of the Act and it is only right that I should put on record our experience of a much wider canvas, not of only one constituency and one Service but of all Services and all constituencies.
What I have said must be provisional at this stage, but we believe these to be figures that will come out. The provisional figures suggest that the change effected by the Act has increased Service men's registration from about 25 per cent. overall to about 40 per cent. overall. That in itself contradicts some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As one would expect, the Royal Air Force has by far the highest registration, but perhaps that is an indication of bias on my part.
At any rate, it is clear that Service men have responded to the change. I believe that wives have responded and will be seen to have responded. It is significant that the highest proportion of wives to have registered under Service


registration has been Navy wives. Therefore, there is not the resistance on the part of many Navy wives, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to being described as Service wives. We cannot compare the number of wives registered as Service voters because there is no comparison.
The change will have a cumulative effect. I hope that next year the situation will be even better than it is this year. I believe that the system will work to the benefit of Service men and their wives. When wives accompany their husbands overseas—the hon. Gentleman did not say anything to contradict this—they are registered as Service voters, which they accept quite amicably. They do not consider that it is an affront to their citizenship to be so registered.
Difficulties sometimes arise with overseas postings that involve those with a considerable amount of expertise in electoral matters in the Home Office. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having dealt with electoral matters over many years, we are not bereft of expertise ourselves. It is in dealing with those overseas that we experience such difficulties as multiple registration—in other words, people being registered in more than one place. There are those who are not registered in any place because of the falling-between-two-stools or three-stools syndrome in the event of overseas postings. That is the sort of problem that we see precluding the optional registration that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman referred to publicity. I have examined this matter with the Ministry of Defence in preparation for the debate. In so far as it is humanly possible to draw to the attention of people the benefits of registration, those steps have been taken. It may be that not every step has been taken, but so far as humanly possible everything has been done in the run-up to the first working of the Act. Service units have devoted a considerable amount of time and manpower to the undertaking of that work and to the information that is sent out.
Wives are not unique in the sense that they depend on their husbands. The head of the household always has to register the voters in his household. That has led to a considerable amount of friction, particularly with children who are left

off the register. There is the problem of dependants in the wider sense of the word—the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean.
Posters were prominently displayed as well as advertisements in Service publications, such as "Navy News," "Soldier" and the Royal Air Forces publication. Electoral registration officers in areas with Service establishments or quarters have taken special steps to ensure that they were aware of the new arrangements. In Gosport the electoral registration officer wrote in October and November to all Service married quarters in the borough and followed that up in those households where a Service man had registered but his wife had not. Whatever else is said, I do not think that there can be criticism on the grounds of lack of publicity or of effort. It may be possible, with cumulative experience, to improve on that. However, no criticism of the initial effort is warranted.
I come to the question of phrases such as "losing my right of citizenship". Registration as a Service voter does not involve any reduction in civic or civil rights. Indeed, in many ways it has advantages. The hon. Gentleman, because of the special situation of the wives he has met, in particular, ignored the importance and advantage to many Service wives of having postal or proxy votes by reason of being registered as Service voters.
I have been asked a couple of specific questions. First, I have sufficiently answered the question about monitoring in dealing with the figures. I promise that when we have a more complete picture of what the register will bring forth I shall write to the hon. Gentleman personally to tell him what the proportions are, who have finally registered up to the February completion of the register and what increase in Service votes that has brought forward.
On the question of emergency legislation I must tell the hon. Gentleman quite candidly that I am not prepared to introduce further legislation when the present legislation has had at best an incomplete chance of proving itself. This House does itself no credit if it rushes round chasing its own tail without having had sufficient experience of the subject revoking laws which it has just passed and carrying out new experiments which it


discards equally quickly. We must have patience in this matter.
However, I promise to look at two particular matters. First, I promise to look at the question whether any improvements can be made on the subject of information. The Ministry of Defence will consider whether more can be done on a nationwide basis to ensure that all Service men and their wives are aware of their rights. There comes a time when one cannot dragoon possible voters into registering for their rights. It is for the individual elector to recognise that he has a duty in the matter. We would all unite in saying that we cannot take initiative from the individual voter, but we shall consider whether there is something we can do to help in the dissemination of information.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned several times the question of attestation. Although it is a minor irritant, I take it that he agrees that it can be a real irritant. I promise to consider whether it is necessary for a Service wife

to change her declaration of attestation and whether it should be retained.
With those assurances and with the at least provisional assurance that I am able to give on a nationwide basis that the figures, so far from showing a great decline in registrations, are showing some hopeful signs but must be firmed up when we know the final state of the registers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content to know that we shall do anything that is reasonable in this matter. However, I cannot promise, particularly in view of the position about legislation, to introduce a new Bill when we realise, having considered the matter, as the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester has, in the Speaker's Conference, that there is no scheme we could devise which would please everyone in every Service situation. We must try to please the majority, and that I believe the Act does.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.